Post by con's fly is open on Nov 19, 2006 19:53:34 GMT 7
Check out the bolded sentence in the middle of the essay!
Jeremy Kinsman: Guest column
How to engage Beijing
November 18, 2006
A few years ago, the Chinese ambassador in Brussels proclaimed the creation of the European Union the kind of human event we see only every three or four hundred years.
Many would view the rise of China today in those very terms. Though it can also be said that China has been the world's leading economy for 18 of the last 20 centuries.
Now, however, what appears to be a Conservative government bias against China on human rights grounds looks to have trumped that country's economic and strategic importance.
Having declined an opportunity to visit Beijing before the APEC summit in Vietnam, Prime Minister Stephen Harper then found his scheduled meeting with the Chinese president in Hanoi subject to the vagaries of the moment.
What seems clear is that the Harper government has alienated the Chinese. A few weeks earlier, ostensibly fearing criticism over his government's handling of the climate change file, Harper cancelled a summit meeting with European Union leaders in Finland, alienating many there as well. (The French prime minister is now proposing a punitive tax on countries such as Canada that don't meet their Kyoto requirements.)
As a result, the Harper government now stands accused of being stand-offish to both these colossi ¡ª the world's largest market and exporter of capital, the EU, which accounts for a quarter of foreign investment in Canada; and the world's most populous and fastest-growing market, China.
Three essential things
It might seem harsh to expect a still-new minority government, almost totally devoted to domestic politics, to be particularly far-sighted towards our number two and three bilateral relationships in the world. But we should remember that each government of Canada is a steward of our past investments in international relationships.
When, in 1980, Pierre Trudeau chose to use his unexpected new mandate to enlarge Canada's foreign opportunities, Allan Gotlieb, the undersecretary for external affairs, told him three essential things:
That the Canada-U.S. relationship is the only one whose importance is imposed upon us, and that it is central to our interests that it succeed.
That Canada is a global player with important relationships in all parts of the world that we need to complement and balance the dominance of the American connection.
That relationships and influence are built up only over time and need sustained long-term strategic investment.
Of those important relationships the EU and China stand out as key powers with which we must succeed. Indeed, Canada did over time build special relationships with both.
Toward the end of Jean Chretien's time as prime minister, the EU leaders even declared Canada to be one of Europe's six key strategic partners, along with the U.S., China, Russia, India and Japan. We were deemed a strategic ally in part because the U.S. shift to a more unilateralist approach to international security made us Europe's lead partner in aiming to make multilateralism effective again.
But inward-looking minority governments can be harmful to the sustained conduct of foreign policy. Paul Martin's few years were a fretful cascade of cancelled meetings and changing priorities, especially with Europe. The Harper Government, in fairness, is doing no worse. But it has as yet been unable to come to grips with the importance and relevance of the European Union, a complex network of states that is still a work in progress.
A special history
There's nothing abstract about China, however. Along with the United States, it is probably one of the last great nation-states.
It is also one with which Canada has enjoyed an edge ever since Trudeau broke the Cold War ice in 1969-70 by recognizing the Peoples' Republic and supporting its admission to the United Nations.
Our market share has not kept pace with that edge, but we do have a trans-Pacific relationship of primary importance, especially now as China grows into a global economic power with significant resource needs.
When it comes to China, human rights should be at the centre of a Canadian government's agenda. But we should also acknowledge the extraordinary transformation that has taken place in China in recent years.
Compare China today to the thoroughly totalitarian era of the Cultural Revolution, whose cruel excesses, by the way, did not deter Trudeau from proceeding with official recognition.
The fact is, Chinese authority is now more benign towards its citizens than, arguably, at any time in China's long history.
Ottawa insiders claim the Harper team appears to be influenced by conservatives in the U.S., who are extremely wary of China. But the Bush administration's wariness can be said to be drawn more from a sense of oncoming strategic rivalry than from considerations over human rights.
When George W. Bush came to power in 2000, a rising China became seen as more of a threat than as a partner, especially as China began to equip itself militarily with the type of equipment that corresponds to its status as a true power.
China's behaviour of late, however, doesn't fully justify it being seen in these terms. For decades, of course, China acted as a cheerleader for anti-Western positions among the non-aligned and the Third World. But for some time now more pragmatism has been apparent in its foreign policy approaches.
The China challenge
Some of the old fault lines do still linger. The result of two centuries of foreign intervention in China has created an obsession there over, for example, Taiwan's status, and has led Beijing to strongly resist any dilution of the rights of sovereign nations at the UN.
As a result, the Chinese stymied attempts in the UN Security Council to send a UN force to protect the Darfuris from the central government of Sudan, a plan Canada strongly favoured. But as resource-starved China imports oil from Sudan ¡ª as well as from Iran, where it has also taken more of a hands-off view ¡ª this probably shows China is motivated as much by economic necessity as by doctrine.
As China's economic interests push it into the international market economy, the Chinese are becoming stakeholders in stability and predictability. This can explain a recent shift away from defending Sudan at all costs, and a sterner Chinese view on North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
No longer, it seems, is international disorder seen favourably by Beijing for the opportunity it presents.
The challenge now is for the world to engage China in a renewed effort to share the burdens and responsibilities of international leadership.
American unilateralism and the so-called coalitions of the willing have failed to enhance either national or international security in a dangerous era. It may be too late to expect the current White House to change course, but a new U.S. administration in 2008 will surely want to engage China as one of its foreign policy priorities.
Should the Democrats win in 2008, one might expect to see the U.S.-China relationship clouded by that party's protectionist impulses. But a more likely insight can be found in the Princeton Project on National Security, a three-year non-partisan study of alternatives. The Princeton study assumes that "the U.S.-China relationship may be the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century."
Also, that "America's goal should not be to block or contain China, but rather to engage it in ways that help it become a responsible stakeholder in the regional and global system."
Interestingly, the study also stresses the maintenance of cooperative economic ties with the EU to deny China the room to play one off against the other in economic and diplomatic spheres. And so it should go for Canada to pursue these two major relationships as well.
The danger, if we let these relationships lapse, is that their North American content will end up being determined by the U.S. alone. What a retreat that would be from over 60 years of Canadian efforts to advance our values and our interests in the key quarters of the world.
Jeremy Kinsman: Guest column
How to engage Beijing
November 18, 2006
A few years ago, the Chinese ambassador in Brussels proclaimed the creation of the European Union the kind of human event we see only every three or four hundred years.
Many would view the rise of China today in those very terms. Though it can also be said that China has been the world's leading economy for 18 of the last 20 centuries.
Now, however, what appears to be a Conservative government bias against China on human rights grounds looks to have trumped that country's economic and strategic importance.
Having declined an opportunity to visit Beijing before the APEC summit in Vietnam, Prime Minister Stephen Harper then found his scheduled meeting with the Chinese president in Hanoi subject to the vagaries of the moment.
What seems clear is that the Harper government has alienated the Chinese. A few weeks earlier, ostensibly fearing criticism over his government's handling of the climate change file, Harper cancelled a summit meeting with European Union leaders in Finland, alienating many there as well. (The French prime minister is now proposing a punitive tax on countries such as Canada that don't meet their Kyoto requirements.)
As a result, the Harper government now stands accused of being stand-offish to both these colossi ¡ª the world's largest market and exporter of capital, the EU, which accounts for a quarter of foreign investment in Canada; and the world's most populous and fastest-growing market, China.
Three essential things
It might seem harsh to expect a still-new minority government, almost totally devoted to domestic politics, to be particularly far-sighted towards our number two and three bilateral relationships in the world. But we should remember that each government of Canada is a steward of our past investments in international relationships.
When, in 1980, Pierre Trudeau chose to use his unexpected new mandate to enlarge Canada's foreign opportunities, Allan Gotlieb, the undersecretary for external affairs, told him three essential things:
That the Canada-U.S. relationship is the only one whose importance is imposed upon us, and that it is central to our interests that it succeed.
That Canada is a global player with important relationships in all parts of the world that we need to complement and balance the dominance of the American connection.
That relationships and influence are built up only over time and need sustained long-term strategic investment.
Of those important relationships the EU and China stand out as key powers with which we must succeed. Indeed, Canada did over time build special relationships with both.
Toward the end of Jean Chretien's time as prime minister, the EU leaders even declared Canada to be one of Europe's six key strategic partners, along with the U.S., China, Russia, India and Japan. We were deemed a strategic ally in part because the U.S. shift to a more unilateralist approach to international security made us Europe's lead partner in aiming to make multilateralism effective again.
But inward-looking minority governments can be harmful to the sustained conduct of foreign policy. Paul Martin's few years were a fretful cascade of cancelled meetings and changing priorities, especially with Europe. The Harper Government, in fairness, is doing no worse. But it has as yet been unable to come to grips with the importance and relevance of the European Union, a complex network of states that is still a work in progress.
A special history
There's nothing abstract about China, however. Along with the United States, it is probably one of the last great nation-states.
It is also one with which Canada has enjoyed an edge ever since Trudeau broke the Cold War ice in 1969-70 by recognizing the Peoples' Republic and supporting its admission to the United Nations.
Our market share has not kept pace with that edge, but we do have a trans-Pacific relationship of primary importance, especially now as China grows into a global economic power with significant resource needs.
When it comes to China, human rights should be at the centre of a Canadian government's agenda. But we should also acknowledge the extraordinary transformation that has taken place in China in recent years.
Compare China today to the thoroughly totalitarian era of the Cultural Revolution, whose cruel excesses, by the way, did not deter Trudeau from proceeding with official recognition.
The fact is, Chinese authority is now more benign towards its citizens than, arguably, at any time in China's long history. Ottawa insiders claim the Harper team appears to be influenced by conservatives in the U.S., who are extremely wary of China. But the Bush administration's wariness can be said to be drawn more from a sense of oncoming strategic rivalry than from considerations over human rights.
When George W. Bush came to power in 2000, a rising China became seen as more of a threat than as a partner, especially as China began to equip itself militarily with the type of equipment that corresponds to its status as a true power.
China's behaviour of late, however, doesn't fully justify it being seen in these terms. For decades, of course, China acted as a cheerleader for anti-Western positions among the non-aligned and the Third World. But for some time now more pragmatism has been apparent in its foreign policy approaches.
The China challenge
Some of the old fault lines do still linger. The result of two centuries of foreign intervention in China has created an obsession there over, for example, Taiwan's status, and has led Beijing to strongly resist any dilution of the rights of sovereign nations at the UN.
As a result, the Chinese stymied attempts in the UN Security Council to send a UN force to protect the Darfuris from the central government of Sudan, a plan Canada strongly favoured. But as resource-starved China imports oil from Sudan ¡ª as well as from Iran, where it has also taken more of a hands-off view ¡ª this probably shows China is motivated as much by economic necessity as by doctrine.
As China's economic interests push it into the international market economy, the Chinese are becoming stakeholders in stability and predictability. This can explain a recent shift away from defending Sudan at all costs, and a sterner Chinese view on North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
No longer, it seems, is international disorder seen favourably by Beijing for the opportunity it presents.
The challenge now is for the world to engage China in a renewed effort to share the burdens and responsibilities of international leadership.
American unilateralism and the so-called coalitions of the willing have failed to enhance either national or international security in a dangerous era. It may be too late to expect the current White House to change course, but a new U.S. administration in 2008 will surely want to engage China as one of its foreign policy priorities.
Should the Democrats win in 2008, one might expect to see the U.S.-China relationship clouded by that party's protectionist impulses. But a more likely insight can be found in the Princeton Project on National Security, a three-year non-partisan study of alternatives. The Princeton study assumes that "the U.S.-China relationship may be the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century."
Also, that "America's goal should not be to block or contain China, but rather to engage it in ways that help it become a responsible stakeholder in the regional and global system."
Interestingly, the study also stresses the maintenance of cooperative economic ties with the EU to deny China the room to play one off against the other in economic and diplomatic spheres. And so it should go for Canada to pursue these two major relationships as well.
The danger, if we let these relationships lapse, is that their North American content will end up being determined by the U.S. alone. What a retreat that would be from over 60 years of Canadian efforts to advance our values and our interests in the key quarters of the world.