By Michael Garson
Following the Cold War, extempers were cursed: they could not find a counterpart to American power. Surely the world will be much tougher to explain when it is unipolar! “Luckily”, China has happily fulfilled the role of rising foreign power that is supposedly hell-bent on supplanting the United States as hegemon. With a powerful economy, growing military, and non-European location, China is a dream for extempers. Not just can global events be tied into American power, but now they can be linked to China. Crisis in Africa? China’s fault. Democracy not catching on in Asia? China’s fault. A tree falls in Brazil? China’s fault. Aside from the fun that extempers can have in linking China to any and all speeches, understanding China’s intentions requires a great deal of research, analysis, and luck. Without the bombastic rhetoric that the Soviet Union employed, it can be hard to solve for China. This brief hopefully will provide enough information and possible explanations to give extempers a chance to get a better grasp of Sino-American relations.
This brief aims to examine how China and America interact by providing two hypothetical, and highly popular extemp questions. “Is China anti-American?” and “Can China overtake the United States” will both be examined as questions and answered in the affirmative and negative with three reasons supporting each response. Hopefully, this style of analysis will more closely lend itself to understanding the construction, and destruction, of arguments in an extemp-specific context.
Relations with the United States
Is China anti-American?
This question is largely derived from the politics of fear and a desire to better understand the world. First, the politics of fear are not a purely post-9/11 phenomenon, though President Bush and Rudy Giuliani have perfected it to a science. The basic concept is that you can scare the populace into action. Many nationalists see a country that is rapidly growing and immediately fear the worst: China is coming to take over the world. Therefore, evidence and logic are being pieced together to create a narrative. This story explains that China poses an existential threat to the United States.
Additionally, this question helps policymakers, and extempers, understand the world. Historically, growing powers have insatiable appetites for control. Likewise, they contend that China seeks to emulate the Soviet Union’s rise. The difference here is that China learned from the USSR’s mistake and has used economics. If dollars were used to end the USSR, the yuan could be used to wage war on the United States. Whether or not you believe China is anti-American, it is important to avoid clichéd arguments and faulty parallels. Examine all facts and look at which story of China’s rise makes the most sense.
Yes
1. Building alliances
At present, China is significantly weaker than the United States. By any measure
(military, economics, politics, diplomacy, culture), America is light-years ahead of China. Therefore, it would be obvious to the allegedly anti-American Chinese to build an alliance. The United States is not so far ahead of the world that it could withstand a multilateral political assault on its power. China’s economic overtures into the Middle East and South America are completely understandable. China needs oil to fuel its economy and markets to sell to. However, recent months have shown China moving from economic partnerships to political ones. As the amount of “international political conferences” increases, concern should follow. The more countries talk, the more likely they are to air out dirty laundry and attempt to address grievances. Some of those grievances likely include the United States. The main link necessary to make this argument is that China is engaging with the world maliciously. One is hard-pressed to look at political alliances and unequivocally claim that China is attempting to use mid-level powers as pawns to stop the American juggernaut.
2. Using economic power
With underdeveloped and overmatched political power, China’s only chance to
get under America’s skin is in economics. With billions of American dollars in storage, China has shown flashes of malice. Two summers ago China responded to an American tariff on Chinese textiles by removing the export tax. This one act, and myriad other isolated incidents, show that China is not afraid to unleash free-market principles on the world. Despite accusations of dumping, China is only scratching the surface. On a nearly weekly basis, newspapers are reporting about a new Chinese economic venture that threatens American jobs. Anytime China enters the global economic market, it can be interpreted as an overtly provocative act by alarmists.
3. Opposition to US on key issues
It is virtually a given that countries are going to disagree on issues. However,
when China and the United States do not see eye to eye, it is hailed another flashpoint in a growing Cold War. Famously, China has protected North Korea from American pressure and intervention. Support for a poor country led by a dictator with nuclear ambitions certainly seems suspicious on this side of the Pacific. Additionally, China has resolutely supported dictatorships and genocides if it serves the national interest. The Sudanese government has been shielded by China’s desire for oil. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is allowed to be so bombastic and hostile partially due to Chinese support. There are so many disagreements that it could make even the most optimistic of extempers wonder if China is being obstinate. By supporting such unsavory characters, China has made politics exceedingly difficult for the United States.
No
1. Chinese desire for regional dominance
The underlying principle of China’s supposed anti-Americanism is that somehow
feels wronged. After all, countries would not have conflicts if there were not irreconcilable differences. In the case of China, some will argue that these differences do not exist. The central desire of the United States is security and prosperity at the national level by implementing security and prosperity abroad. One could argue that the United States does not want to control the world, but feels it is necessary.
China offers not a threat, but a solution to this situation. China is willing to take Asia off of the United States’ hands. As will be described later, China wants to implement a tribute-style system in Asia, where major policy decisions in the region run through Beijing. Though certainly not the most democratic or “American” of countries, China only wants to control its own backyard. To the extent that stabilization of a continent is good, China is simply not anti-American.
2. Has not used power against America
In the world of politics, talk is cheap. It is easy for world leaders to condemn
other countries for running roughshod over international norms and expectations. The big leap is from words to action. Even if we are to accept Chinese rhetoric as decidedly anti-American, which it really has not been, there has been no subsequent action. Sure, China has occasionally sent missiles into the air and repealed export tariffs, but those actions can be declared to be anti-American. China could easily justify all their actions in the past decade under the banners of political unification and economic growth. Using the American judicial system, defendants are innocent until proven guilty. To level the charge of anti-Americanism on a country that has yet to accept the title could have very deep ramifications. To make the argument circular, labeling China anti-American could increase tensions, actually making China anti-American.
3. China needs America
The most obvious reason that China is not anti-American is because it would be
stupid to be. China simply cannot afford to intentionally oppose the United States. As evidenced by the Middle East, the United States do not take kindly to overt opposition. While an invasion of China would range from unfathomably counterintuitive to impossible, the United States could use diplomacy to make life a little tougher. Both countries are powerful to ruin each other (Mutually Assured Destruction theory makes a comeback!), so anger and destructive plans would be unwise.
Aside form the military angle, the United States serves as a key political and
economic asset. The United States currently calls the shots globally and its approval is a prerequisite for power. Influence in the international community with other democratic, industrialized countries would be difficult if the United States did not formally recognize China. Economically, the United States is a huge consumer of Chinese products. China has built an export-driven economy. Despite the recent economic slowdown and upsurge in economic nationalism, the United States has continued with insatiable appetite for foreign products. If China truly was anti-American, they would not continue to sell goods to them. Further, China currently holds a great deal of investments denominated in the American dollar.
Can China overtake the United States?
This type of question is exceedingly popular for policymakers and extemp question-writers. There is something very enticing about the idea of the world shifting from unipolarity. Impacting out of this question can be both fun and easy. Letting the globe be controlled by a communist country would unleash myriad ramifications that would interest even the most disinterested of judges.
The danger is in not defining terms. One of the most overlooked aspects of answering an extemp question is clarifying what exactly is being answered. Without a definition to what the question is alluding to, the next 5 minutes of the speech will be a complete waste of time. Power need not be defined in such literal terms as “Having an economy x times bigger than the 2nd largest or a military that can destroy the next 3 largest combined”. Simply saying in the introduction that “overtake” means being the most powerful is also not enough. Defining “most powerful” as the country that has the power to push its agenda the farthest would be sufficient. Though it makes answering the question and linking points to the answer harder, clarifying terms early gives the speech clarity, coherence, and a direction. Otherwise, a speech is 7 minutes of vagaries and incomplete arguments.
Yes
1. Economy will eventually surpass America’s
It would be pointless for this brief to trot out dozens of studies, charts, and graphs that determine precisely when China’s economy will be larger than that of the United States. An extemper can find out that information after spending a few minutes on Google. It is not the date of the change, but the seeming inevitability of it that scares American policymakers. As noted in the previous brief of globalization, the significance of economics in global power is larger now than ever before. The ability to buy and sell alliances on the open political market has become commonplace. With double-digit growth, China does not even have to sustain its current growth rate to pass the United States. As America’s economy slumps due to high commodity prices, bad investments, and increased debt, China seems primed to be number one.
Within the context of a speech, it is imperative to link economic dominance to other measurements. Power is such a vague concept, that it is not enough to let a large economy be directly linked to hegemony. To provide evidence for this contention, I would advise extempers to use examples of how China has translated economics into politics. Numerous bilateral trade deals have been put in place. As referenced earlier, China’s relationship with Latin America is almost entirely out of economic convenience. Using Latin America as a case-study, extempers could show that if the world starts to see China as a stronger economic ally, then global support will shift to the Far East’s leader.
2. Undeveloped population and political power are resources
Though not entirely fair, it is somewhat logical that countries with more people
will be more powerful. Larger populations give way to greater economic growth, a stronger political base, and a larger military. With the possible exception of India, there is no more underutilized population than that of China. Roughly a third of China’s population in the booming southeast region of the country. This means that there are 700 million people living in China’s rural areas to the north and west. In other terms, a population more than twice the size of America’s is largely engaging in subsistence farming in small towns. China’s meteoric rise despite only using a fraction of the population makes the sleeping dragon that much scarier. Again, extempers need to be sure to link a larger population into terms that can be directly associated with power. Explicitly how people can improve an economy, society, and military, coupled with an explanation of how those three factors directly lead to power may seem tedious. Yet, it is imperative that the judge is constantly aware that each argument and statistic is part of the competitor’s attempt to answer the question.
Aside from ignoring the majority of the population, China has yet to fully capitalize on its political capital globally. To reference previous briefs that addressed types of power, China may have more soft power than it realizes. As a refresher, soft power is the concept developed by Joseph Nye that allows countries to advance an agenda by showing common interests with another country. In other words, China’s role as the less-than-democratic counterpart to the United States may be very attractive to certain countries. Many countries around the world reluctantly align themselves with the United States out of fear and convenience. The support of the largest military and economy tends to let many smaller powers ignore any ideological disagreements. If China continues its rise, it could offer an alternative to small powers looking for protection. Hugo Chavez and Middle Eastern leaders would be free to say and do anything under the cover of China’s protection. Latin American populists and nationalists would no longer fear the United States. Though it would be extremely unlikely there would ever be a threat of conflict, China has the possibility of restarting a Cold War, bipolarizing the world. The only way to do this would be to add pressure to smaller powers to fall in line under the Chinese banner.
3. US is willing to give up the role
After World War II, the United States was left alone as the superpower. Despite a challenge from the Soviet Union, America has remained number one for roughly six decades. Being in control has offered alliances and a serious attempt at global democratization. Also, debts have been left unpaid since the world needs the United States as the global net consumer. However, in the words of Uncle Ben, “with great power comes great responsibility”. The costs of leading the world are taking their toll and may be enough to convince the US to step aside and let China give it a try.
To review some of the problems of hegemony:
– America has needed to lead efforts to stop despotism (World Wars, counter the USSR, get involved in Somalia, Yugoslavia etc.)
– If America did not act, it was called selfish and racist (as evidenced by inaction in Rwanda)
– If America did not act perfectly, it was called heavy-handed and inept (as evidenced by action in Somalia and the 2nd Gulf War)
– Even if it does act nobly and effectively, it can be called imperial by helping to rebuild a country (Japan, Germany, Afghanistan)
– It is looked at as the source of problems and solutions in the global economy
o The United States is virtually required to be a net consumer to keep other economies afloat
I am not suggesting that the United States wants, or should, stop being a global leader. That debate is for another brief and largely irrelevant to China’s rise. However, it is relevant to the extent that a question involving China’s power relative to the United States could be partially answered by answering the American side of the equation. A rising China is irrelevant if the United States grows at the same rate. A falling America and growing China allows the extemper to show how the two countries will intersect sooner rather than later.
No
1. China lacks institutional alliances
Global (co-)dominance is not as easy as having the money and military to enforce
national agenda. No country could get away with an overtly aggressive foreign policy. Therefore, there needs to be subtle ways to indirectly use power to get the desired result. The best way to do so is through institutions. If a country has control over a respected organization or system, it can derive the benefits of power without the fallout of blame and jealousy. A prime example is America’s leading role in the WTO, World Bank, and IMF. America, and its western allies, use these organizations to implement a western economic agenda. Economic growth is closely monitored and regulated by the world’s elite. Countries that disobey economic or political norms can be punished with trade restrictions. Though underutilized, the United States exerts influence in the United Nations. As co-founder of the organization, America can make backroom deals to coax the right vote totals. To draw an unnecessary Harry Potter parallel, the United States has invested parts of it soul in many places around the world. Surpassing America’s economy and military is simply not enough. All of the “horcruxes” must be destroyed before China can officially claim victory.
When looking at where China can add institutional strength, the prospects look bleak. Some regional organizations, such as ASEAN may be helpful, but there simply are not that many global institutions that are not already controlled. The UN would be a viable option given China’s Security Council veto power, but the United States, France, and England provide a check on China. Unless China plans on growing so large and important that it can create a legitimate global organization that it can control, it will be nearly impossible to have institutional alliances. In the rare event that China can create a global group of significance, it would not matter. The sheer ability to do so would show sufficient power to be a global leader in the first place.
2. Regional, not global ambitions
This point requires a bit of applied knowledge and guesswork, but certainly is
valid. Historically, China has not aspired to be a global leader. Instead, it wants to have a pseudo-empire throughout Asia. China’s aggressive rhetoric is typically directed at fellow Asian powers, not the industrialized, western states. One of the reasons that the United States desired global dominance is because of a lack of history. Countries that have ruled before often want to return to the “glory days”. For the United States, there were no glory days, so it chased power to the greatest extent possible. In contrast, China’s glory days created a continental tribute system with China at the top.
A modernized tribute system is likely China’s goal. It would entail the same
geographic and political boundaries throughout the region. Any time that a smaller power wanted to enact a significant policy change, it would ask China for approval. Countries would have independence, but be subject to Chinese oversight. This idea does seem horribly antiquated and infeasible, but when Chinese leaders reference their golden ages, it is clear that they have a love affair with the past. Indeed, China may desire to make its past its future. Clearly, if China does not have global ambitions, America will remain at the top, regardless of China’s power possibilities.
3. Lacks a uniform foreign policy to set a global agenda
Certain bedrock principles are required to make a push for hegemony. The United
States has relied heavily on capitalist and democratic rhetoric. World Wars were justified to the people as a war against tyranny and despotism. The Cold War was a protracted struggle for basic human freedoms. America left the Gold Standard in order to preserve economic freedom for the masses. While there are some exceptions, the United States’ actions have been largely predictable. Countries that stand beside America know exactly what they are signing up for.
In contrast, China lacks those principles. One could argue that China is simply a
re-creation of the Soviet Union. They are both communist countries that reject American democracy. However, the similarities end there. China has employed free-market principles and loosened restrictions on democracy. The only common thread of China’s actions in the past few decades is a desire for power. While desiring strength is fine as an internal decision-calculus, it does not make for a foreign policy. A world led by China would be very inconsistent. Petrostates would be left unchecked, some democracies challenged, and other countries ignored. Power is not a guiding principle for global power distribution. Ruling the world would prove impossible, forcing the world to descend into international anarchy. Surely countries recognize the potential for ineptitude in leadership and wish to avoid such a fate. Therefore, few will consent to Chinese leadership, creating a global coalition against China surpassing the United States.
“China’s Peaceful Rise.” Brookings Institute. <http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2005/chinaspeacefulrise.aspx>.
This book review references speeches by Zheng Bijian during the turn of the millenium. Zheng was the first Chinese official to coin the term “peaceful rise”. This philosophy holds that China can grow into a powerhouse without encroaching on the pre-existing order.
Ikenberry, G. John. “The Rise of China and the Future of the West.” Jan.-Feb. 2008. Foreign Affairs. <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87102/g-john-ikenberry/the-rise-of-china-and-the-future-of-the-west.html>.
This article starts off with a dangerous proposal: China is guaranteed to overthrow the United States. Working off of this starting point, Ikenberry explores what the world would look like. His solutions are extremely fascinating and provide myriad impacts, AGDs, and possibilities.
Naim, Moises. “Can the World Afford a Middle Class?” Los Angeles Times. 8 Feb. 2008. <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-naim8feb08,0,3322827.story>. Mr. Naim, editor of Foreign Policy magazine, looks at the growth in the developing world and explores its ramifications. He notes there simply may not be enough resources globally to go around. Americans have long benefited from taking more than their alloted share of the world’s offerings. If the Chinese middle class become more powerful, they will inevitably be at loggerheads with the United States’ population.
Thornton, John L. “Long Time Coming.” Jan.-Feb. 2008. Foreign Affairs. <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87101/john-l-thornton/long-time-coming.html>.
Thornton contends that China is in fact democratizing. Even though it may in be at the rate or fashion that the United States desires, China is opening up. He certainly does not make a groundbreaking argument but combines fact with theory to create a narrative of a liberating China.
“U.S. Based Global Firms Oppose Trade Limits on China.” 7 Feb. 2008. MarketWatch. <http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-based-global-firms-oppose-trade/story.aspx?guid=%7BA8DA2B44-3619-462C-917E-0411F544D5AB%7D>.
During economic hard times, there is an impulse to stop international trade. This article investigates how American policymakers are grappling with seeing China as the cause and/or solution to America’s economic woes.
Since 2008, Iraq gradually ceased to be a topic in extemporaneous speaking. This accelerated after the U.S. withdrew its remaining forces from the country in 2011. Optimists thought that Iraq questions would fade much like Vietnam questions did in the 1960s and 1970s. However, the rise of the Islamic State (IS) in 2014 will cause extempers to talk a great deal about Iraq policy in 2014-2015. The IS was proclaimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a Sunni militant group, on June 29 and includes territory in Syria and Iraq. This summer, ISIS continued its advances into Iraqi territory, seizing Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and taking over several Christian towns. The group murdered non-Sunni Muslims, Christians, and those of other religious denominations. These religious minorities sought refuge elsewhere in Iraq, especially Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq. Advances by ISIS into Kurdish territory and their siege of the Yazidis – a Kurdish-speaking Zoroastrian/Sufi religious community – near Mount Sinjar prompted the Obama administration to launch airstrikes to halt the group’s advance. Although President Obama stated that U.S. ground forces will not be returning to Iraq, these airstrikes constitute a return of American military forces to Iraq. The airstrikes have also created a debate over the effectiveness of President Obama’s foreign policy, which his former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, criticized in The Atlantic.
Here is today’s premium R&D to accompany 
Here is today’s premium R&D to accompany 
US hegemony in Middle East is ending
As has been the case over the last several years, international attention was focused on North Korea last week as former U.S. president Bill Clinton went on a “humanitarian” mission to seek the release of two American journalists detained there. Unlike other attempts at international reconciliation with North Korea, Clinton’s visit was a large success, winning the release of the journalists and possibly opening a new arena of dialogue between the U.S. and North Korea over its human rights record and nuclear program.
Ever since she joined Barack Obama’s cabinet as Secretary of State, insiders across the political spectrum have weighed in about Hillary Clinton’s intentions in taking the job. Was she coming on board to overshadow the new president? Was she going to try to use the position to increase her political clout and make another run at the White House in 2016, or potentially 2012 if Obama failed? Or was she going into the job in order to provide a valuable supplement to the Obama team in the foreign arena?