Economist: Chinese torture
[url]http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11488608[/url]Chinese torture
Jun 5th 2008
From The Economist print edition
The European Union may find dealing with the Middle Kingdom trickier than it expects
Illustration by Peter Schrank
IN THIS Olympic summer, expect to hear a lot about the century of China's rise and America's decline. That sounds like good news for the European Union, and all who dream of a “multipolar” order in which European wealth counts as much as American military might. China's rulers say they want economic development and a peaceful world in which no “hegemon” can throw its weight around. (Just do not ask too much about China's rising defence spending, or its contempt for freedoms that the EU holds dear.) Right on cue, two new publications have appeared, examining deepening ties between the EU and China—and what they may mean for America.
“Can Europe and China Shape a New World Order?” asks a pamphlet from the Centre for European Reform (CER), a London-based think-tank. It urges EU leaders to make the case to China for a world based on rules and multilateral co-operation. American policymakers are the target of “China-Europe Relations”, a report from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, which warns them to pay more (or even some) attention to burgeoning EU-China ties that could, if mishandled, cause a transatlantic “rift over China”.
Europe and China do have things in common. Many Europeans are “rather relaxed” about America losing its status of unchallenged global superpower, says the CER report, with nice understatement. The EU is already China's largest trade partner, with two-way flows topping ?300 billion ($440 billion) in 2007 (with the balance overwhelmingly in China's favour). As an exporter of manufactured goods, China should share Europe's interest in world economic governance and harmonised regulations—unlike, say, resource exporters such as Russia, which could sell gas and oil even in a lawless world.
China and Europe do not see each other as a military threat. America maintains troops and security alliances all around China's rim, and would be expected to defend Taiwan in the event of attack from the mainland. Most Europeans barely know that Taiwan exists, and when their governments do mention that embattled island, it is to chide it for “provoking” China with dangerous notions like democracy. Although in theory China, Europe and America are determined Iran should not go nuclear, China and some European governments often seem keener on trading with Iran than in curbing its weapons ambitions.
There is another common area. Whereas many Americans have in recent years seen the “war on terror” as an existential fight that overshadows all else, the Europeans and Chinese talk about terrorism as just one item in their leaders' in-trays. Even a love of talking unites mandarins from Beijing and Eurocrats from Brussels. The EU now has 27 sectoral agreements and “dialogues” with China (with three more on the way), dealing with everything from human rights to co-operation in space.
So should America be worried? In a word, no. It is true that China talks about multilateralism a lot, and under outside pressure has been a bit more willing than it was to put pressure on pariah states such as North Korea, Myanmar and Sudan. But multilateralism means different things to Chinese and Europeans. At a recent two-day meeting of European, American and Chinese foreign-policy types, the Chinese made clear that sovereignty and stability trump all other concerns. Europe, in contrast, is founded on the very idea of pooled sovereignty.
European attitudes to China could change quite quickly. Take the Olympics. European protests against a Chinese-organised torch relay provoked deep anger in China (and the nationalist tone of that anger caused matching dismay in Europe). Once the games begin, America will probably be knocked off the top of the medal tables by China. That will be a shock to American pride. But if Chinese delight turns to nationalist swagger, that risks turning European stomachs (just as surely as victory chants of “U-S-A, U-S-A” did in previous games).
A far more substantial falling-out between Europe and China could be in store because of climate change. If terrorism has been seen by some Americans as an existential threat, climate change has arguably acquired the same status in Europe. And as tensions across the Atlantic have shown, people who feel their existence threatened find it hard to forgive others who disagree. The next American president is likely to be far more co-operative over tackling climate change than George Bush. But China's position is ambivalent: it is committed to tackling global warming, amid soaring carbon emissions, but it is also a developing country, with much growing to do (see article).
Whose carbon is it anyway?
European countries, led by manufacturing powers such as Germany, France or Italy, are already spoiling for a carbon-tinged trade fight with China. An EU deal to reduce carbon emissions is due to be agreed later this year, and it will impose big costs on European industry. At a summit in March there were demands for action against imports from countries that do not impose binding limits on carbon: some called for “green” import tariffs, others for making foreigners buy EU emissions permits.
Yet Chinese voices offer a counter-argument. If China is emitting ever more carbon, that is partly because it has become the workshop of the world. A hefty chunk of Chinese emissions (estimates of 30% or more are bandied about) is “embedded” in goods that are exported, often by multinational companies. In other words, many Chinese factories are really emitting European (or American) carbon. The likely response from EU leaders is not hard to guess: if that is European carbon, then those must have been European jobs.
Put globalisation, jobs and climate change into the same dispute, and you have the makings of a nasty trade fight. Before too long, Europeans may miss the days when American “hyperpower” was all they had to worry about. To me, this economist article finally admits the truth; so called “free Tibet” hullabaloo is merely a nasty trade fight over jobs and climate change.
Europeans do not hesitate to rewrite history, distort Buddhism, and defy other country’s sovereignty and culture…primarily for dirty trade fight….
Reply 2# Enid's post
Excellent article, thank you very much, although it still dismissed Russia, the largest exporter of commodities. @EnidIt is a good article. But I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Europeans like to rewrite history and all that stuff. Also the link between Free Tibet and trade fight is something I can not conclude from this article.
What I conclude is this; The relation between EU and China is very good but instable. America is doomed if the relationship between EU and China continues to develop. The writer then gives an analysis on how the relation between the EU and China can be broken up. I feel it is more like suggesting how the US can maintain their power, this by keep bullying China and start talking green to Europe, above anything else.
Reply 4# Ronald's post
Which is precisely what I was hinting at in another thread but was too lazy to clarify (and I thought that a simple remark was just pithy!). @ RonaldMy (personal) comment and what the conclusion Economist article can bring are two different things. While what I put in 2# is comment.
This article is about EU-China relationship, or EU-China ties as the author put it, and how this ties falling-out in this Olympic summer. The author admits the substance of this falling-out is on jobs and climate change dispute, (my comment: but not on the ugly Olympic European protesters).
My comment: I haven’t see any mainstream western media admit (apologize) for their use of indelicate artifice (distort history etc) over Tibet-Olympic issue. Although they really did so, at least many Chinese believe they did so.
My comment: This article at least make known what Europeans primary want in this eventful Olympic summer. Is it Shangrila ? Is it pureness of region? Nothing but their selfish trick! @Enid
I think I only made a comment about your personal comment right? I just said that after reading the article I have a different conclusion then you. I know that the 1st posting was the article and the 2nd was your conclusion that is very obvious to see. I just disagree with you, I have a different opinion/conclusion then you about this article. @ Ronald
That’s fine. We do not have to come with same conclusion / comment over one article.
Page:
[1]