The new cold war

Published: June 21, 2015
Email
The writer is a former caretaker finance minister and served as vice-president at the World Bank

The writer is a former caretaker finance minister and served as vice-president at the World Bank

Great power rivalry is back on the international stage. For a quarter of a century following the collapse of the Soviet Union and that of European communism, the global stage had only one actor, the United States. There is now one other player seeking a role in the new game. China is now the world’s largest economy having overtaken the United States when the national outputs of the two countries are measured on the basis of the purchasing power parity methodology. This has been done by the International Monetary Fund. Beijing is now aggressively engaged in carving out a sphere of influence for itself in the region it dominates both economically and militarily. However, Washington sees the Chinese attempts posing a threat to its position in the Pacific Ocean. It shouldn’t be that way.

The old Cold War was not entirely cold. During the period when it raged, there were wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The Vietnam communists won the first while the Russian communist regime lost the second. The two wars had significant consequences. As argued by Francis Fukuyama, they spelled the “end of history”. It was demonstrated that the world was meant to follow liberal democracy and capitalism as the most viable systems for political and economic governance. There was agreement among development experts which earned the title of ‘The Washington Consensus’ that the state should pull back from managing the economy in any significant way. Ronald Reagan, the then US president, famously said the government was not the solution of economic problems; it was, in fact, the problem. There were moves in the US and more recently in Britain to severely limit the role of the state in both economic and political matters. But it was not recognised that a weakened state will find it difficult to be assertive in international affairs.

This is where the Chinese system of governance combines a strong state working closely with large and strong economic enterprises, seems to have the flexibility and resolve to be effective on the global stage. As the American political system gains the reputation for being dysfunctional, emerging states in Asia are finding the Chinese way of political and economic management to be attractive.

Under US President Barack Obama, Washington has spelled out an approach which it calls the “pivot to Asia”. The main policy instrument it is working on is the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) for achieving this objective. It involves a dozen countries. In addition to itself it includes Australia, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, South Korea and Vietnam. China is conspicuously absent on the ground that the TPP will cover only those countries in which the state is not the dominant force in defining international commerce. But for the moment the Obama Administration has been thrown on the back foot. On June 12, the House, the lower chamber of US Congress, rejected the Obama Administration’s move to get the “fast track authority”. This authority means that a trade treaty can only be approved or rejected but not tinkered with. In the absence of such authority, it would be virtually impossible to have a trade agreement work itself through Congress. Under the proposed legislation the president will have the authority for six years which period will also cover the term of the person who succeeds President Obama in January 2017.

The TPP, a 30-chapter document, negotiated over several years, is focused on the harmonisation of trade policies rather than on cutting tariffs on trade. As a result of several rounds of trade negotiations, tariffs have been cut down to the point where they don’t discourage international flow of goods and commodities. Those that are still high are mostly because of cultural reasons. This is the case with the Japanese tariffs on rice. Trade would be even easier if the countries involved follow the same set of regulations — develop, in other words, a level playing field. The TPP document among the Pacific Rim nations is important since they have a combined GDP of $28 trillion or 40 per cent of the global total. If the TPP is enacted, it will also lead to the successful conclusion of the other big Obama initiative, the one that would streamline the regulating systems in the United States and the European Union.

Most trade experts and analysts regard the House vote as a major setback for the president who is now in the last few months of his presidency. According to Lawrence Summer, former US Treasury Secretary and now a professor at Harvard University, repudiation of the TPP by Congress would “reinforce concerns that the vicissitudes of domestic policies are rendering the US a less reliable ally. Coming on top of the US failure to stop or join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, it would signal the lack of US commitment to Asia when China is flexing its muscles.” The Chinese did not have to flex their military muscles to gain new ground in Asia. The Americans are doing it for them by finding it difficult to get a political consensus on regulating international trade, one area where they still have considerable influence.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 21st, 2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (7)

  • ajeet
    Jun 21, 2015 - 5:33AM

    Vietnam can handle china single handedly.Recommend

  • globalobserver
    Jun 21, 2015 - 9:26AM

    China is now the world’s largest economy having overtaken the United States when the national outputs of the two countries are measured on the basis of the purchasing power parity methodology.

    This GDP measure based on PPP is highly misleading in a country like China where the population is very high.

    The reality is that per capita GDP in dollar terms in China is miles behind the US. The US per capita GDP is $55,000 while that of China is $13,000. The US ranks 10th in this criteria while China ranks 89th.

    Even India ranks third in GDP in PPP terms. So, this talk of India or China as taking over the top of the world in GDP is highly misleading when the true dollar term per capita GDP of both of these countries is miles and miles behind the US.Recommend

  • Ch Amir Ali Sandhu
    Jun 21, 2015 - 10:55AM

    The article emphasized on the American side of ‘The new cold war’ with a very little said on China’s discourse; the article could have benefited from China’s foreign and security policy vis-a-vis regional bodies such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The concept of a cold war is one that underlines bipolarity of the inter-state arena, and is essentially a neo-realist view of the international order. However, both the US and China are involved in multilateral trade and security regimes; there is hope that this would significantly improve ties between the two states and the two can work side-by-side in partnership with supra-national institutions – both regional and global. Recommend

  • shahid
    Jun 21, 2015 - 6:12PM

    @ajeet:
    OK, OK ! Yeah RIGHT ??? We know you are a genius from HINDU-stan who has a twisted prejudiced mind. Its not your fault, dreaming is okay as long as it is within the boundaries of your skull boundary. Keep it that ways asd you will keep on dreaming, without impact on the outer world. Recommend

  • Komal S
    Jun 22, 2015 - 9:41AM

    @shahid:

    I like the way this Pakistani brother is coming to the rescue of his Chinese master.Recommend

  • rajesh
    Jun 22, 2015 - 5:03PM

    The sheer scale of China’s economy has expanded its global footprint, provided the means to pay for a far larger and more advanced military, and driven rising expectations from the public at home. Once a trading power, China has become an investing power too, with far greater exposure to the countries where its people and projects are present. Once a defensive military power with horizons that did not extend far beyond Taiwan, China has now had nearly a decade of preparing the PLA for “new historic missions” across the world.
    For the last couple of decades none of this added up to much more than an interesting footnote in Chinese foreign policy. Beijing was wedded to a non-aligned stanceRecommend

  • Usman
    Jun 23, 2015 - 3:16PM

    It is too early to say that we are entering in another the era like cold war. Beside, I found many historical notions misleading especially when these are used to describe the present. History, of course, is relevant, and will always remain. But what is more important to it, is the specific context of present events. So let us look at the context now.

    As Mr. Burki has also noted Fukuyama’s term end of history; this notion was coming from over consensus and also over-confidence of remaining parties of cold war. I don’t know to what extent this consensus has affected those who failed to agree, but it has certainly affected those who were celebrating it. This consensus led the Atlantic states in an era of stagnation. Lack of reforms at home, and hegemonic role on the globe created disaster in these states that they cannot find any way out of it. Whenever there was a financial melt down or political crisis or even the issue of governance, these Atlantic states responded with the notion of “more”. In result governance became good governance and than good-good governance and than good enough governance and so on. Similarly political issues were addressed with more democracy even more democracy and so on. Economic issues are also dealt with the same notion and that is more capitalism, more liberalization and so on. This whole process created a crisis that cannot be over come until radical changes in the basics of all these political, economic and governance models.

    On the other hand, there were few who remained adoptive (against the stagnant forces) and the biggest example of these adoptive forces is China. Even Russia has adopted a lot over the past two decades. Now in context of this world order—which is led by these stagnant forces—the adoptive forces will grow even higher and will inherent all that was earned by stagnant forces through all means. I would conclude, that this will not be another cold war, this will be a transition—relatively faster than of cold war period–from unipolar to multipolar system. One thing to remember about cold war is, it was a bipolar world in, which two opposing sides were struggling for unipolarity in one’s own favor. In result we had a unipolar system. But now the case is different. Now we have many actors—which I call regional hegemons—who are trying to make the currant system in their favor. Examples are oblivious. Germany in Europe, Brazil in South America, China in East Asia, India in South Asia, South Africa in Africa, Russia in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Iran and Saudi Arabia in Middle East and North Africa. Than these regional hegemons have their rivals, regionally and also globally. China is only one hegemon of this whole changing order. The stagnant power is about to collapse and no body will get it this time singularly, it’s a zero sum game.Recommend

More in Opinion