Recently, and especially during the Rio Olympics, a lot of articles were written about Chinese Olympics performance vis a vis the US and UK. As any astute foreign policy commentator will note, there was a difference in the Western coverage of China, compared to Russia, for example.

China was regarded as a challenger, but not an enemy, unlike Russia, where competitions between US and Russia almost reached the rhetorical limits of Rocky 4.

During the Olympics, however, I was engrossed in reading "Easternisation: War and Peace in the Asian century" by Gideon Rachman, chief foreign correspondent of the Financial Times. The book deals with the inevitable rise of China, and the response of the United States. Without getting involved in hyperbole, I can say this is currently one of the best and most balanced book I have read on the Asian question dealing with the Sino-American play in motion.

Rachman has worked in Asia since 1993 and has charted the growth of China for much of that time. Such experience comes in useful in producing this book. The central thesis is one that is already known - the emergence of an Asian century- and the frequent theme of Western analysis.

The first time it was talked about was after Japanese victory over Russia in 1905. And it reached almost paranoid levels during the late 80s and early 90s with Japan's technological rise. Skeptics have always been right in expressing doubts whenever this "The East is Rising" paranoia hits the headlines.

This time, however, it is different, Rachman notes, almost with stoic resignation. The reason is historical. Up until the 1400s, the power of capital and technology lay in the East, in the Indian subcontinent, China and Middle East, especially in Baghdad and Tehran. From the 15th Century, it started to change, and, for good or bad, it was accepted that the East had lost the technological battle to the West.

Along with science, the Renaissance gave rise to the 500-year rule of Western powers protected by, first, Pax Britannica and then by Pax Americana.

That is changing, according to Rachman, and the sheer numbers favor the East. China and India combined by 2030 will have the biggest economic and demographic power in the World. Of the top four economies in the world when it comes to sheer purchasing power, three are Asian. With the draining of Russia and the relative decline of US, with their rivalry in Eastern Europe and Middle East, and the stagnation and implosion of the EU, the two biggest powers, China and India, which, undisturbed by global calamities, could prioritize their resources to fuel unstoppable growth.

What will be the reaction of the West, meaning the US? That is where the Olympic analogy comes in. No matter who wins the White House, Rachman notes, the understanding that US is the sole hegemon of the global commons, will be over. Resignation to this fate might not be on the cards, nor will there probably be a complete Cold war-type rivalry, as the situation is very different than the 1980s, with intertwined trade and an interdependent existence.

Rachman also argues that China is unlike the Soviet Union, a point that is exemplified by the behavior of Chinese athletes during the Olympics being just like teenage counterparts in the West. The fact is that, even when China guards its interests, it is in no way interested to challenge or rival US hegemony in Asia directly, nor get bogged down in a meaningless and draining adversarial relation.

After all, China benefits from the US carrying the majority of the global security burden, and that is an accepted fact. Much depends, therefore, on how the US will view this future and whether it will essentially carve out spheres of interest, or come to a tacit understanding with China of each other's areas of interest and needs, and, like UK and US after the Second World War, start a "special relationship' of benign hegemony with an acceptance of the historical inevitability of the rise of the East.

There are flaws in the book, however. Nothing is mentioned about how other actors, like Japan and India might behave. Nothing is mentioned about the biggest challenge facing both China and the West in the future, namely, the huge population of Africa and Middle East, two huge regions not as advanced as either the West or the East.

Nothing is said about why, both India and China, both sufferers of colonialism, ultimately learnt how to play the global game and took up the challenge, while Africa and Middle East failed.

However, this can be left for subsequent studies. For now, one can sincerely hope, policymakers on both sides pays attention to Rachman's stoic acceptance of inevitability and seek interest- based co-existence.

Sumantra Maitra is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/SumantraMaitra.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors only, not necessarily those of China.org.cn

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)