nye217_Chip SomodevillaGetty Images_xibiden

Politics

美中竞争的逻辑

May 6, 2021 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

坎布里奇—美国总统乔·拜登最近在美国国会发表演讲时曾警告，中国对试图成为世界最重要的大国态度极为认真。但拜登也宣誓，独裁者不会赢得未来；而美国会。如果处理不当，美中大国竞争可能带来危险的结局。但如果美国处理得当，与中国的竞争可能带来健康的关系。

拜登对华政策的成功部分取决于中国，但同时也取决于美国如何改变。保持美国在技术方面的领先地位至关重要，而且需要在人力资本和研发领域进行投资。拜登同时提出了上述两项建议。与此同时，美国还必须应对新的跨国威胁，包括气候变化和杀死美国人数量超过自1945年以来该国所有战争总和的流行病。必须与中国和其他国家合作应对这些挑战。

拜登因此面临着一项艰巨的计划，并将对华竞争视之为“必须加倍努力，争取迎头赶上的机会。”尽管他在演讲中提到了富兰克林·D·罗斯福总统和大萧条，同时避开了误导性的冷战言论，但仍然可以同20世纪50年代的局势进行相对恰当的类比，当时德怀特·艾森豪威尔总统利用苏联卫星发射所带来的冲击，刺激美国在教育、基础设施和新技术等领域的投资。美国现在是否也能做同样的事？

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 Comments on this article

Nick Wang May 15, 2021

Professor Nye has a point. The surest (and probably the only) way to avoid any blow-up among nations (and to restrain hegemonic tendencies) is to turn those nations into conjoined twins (or conjoined multiplets at global level). That way, political systems, military strength etc become less relevant. Your sustenance is also my sustenance. What is beneficial to you is similarly beneficial to me. China has expounded the idea of a world of common destiny. Will the US be willing to climb down from its exceptionalist high horse?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alessandro Daliana May 13, 2021

It seems to me the premise of this article is notwithstanding the technological advances we have made as a people the role of government needs to remain constant. Does it? We have communication tools which permit people around the world to cooperate and collaborate with each other 24/7/365 on all sorts of projects or organizations. These tools can also be used to reduce government portfolios. I suspect many of these existential challenges can be better managed by the private sector.
Many will retort how do you fund this? The answer is simply cryptocurrencies. By design these are global networks used for the transfer of value.
The more challenging of aspect of cryptocurrencies is their legal status both as an asset class and as an organizational entity. But these issues can be readily resolved by legislators in each jurisdiction. And, by design, these organizations are a mix of competition and cooperation which may help peacefully reconcile the western politics land economic system with the Chinese one.
Most of the 20th century was punctuated by capitalism’s violent responses to the political and economic challenges posed by new systems that increased the welfare of an ever greater number of citizens. First it was the socialists, then the fascists, followed by the communists, now it is the Chinese. Let’s learn from the mistakes of the past and not swing the west to the right again because that never ends well. Projects like Ethereum are much more successful models we can follow and much good come out of in the form of smaller government, more direct democracy and a more equitable distribution of wealth. Let’s be smart this time around.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Madurai Padmanabhan May 10, 2021

Too many false arguments, albeit palatable to the targeted reader who indirectly and unknowingly may be funding it.

The author, an expert on power politics believes only when it is wielded unilaterally. Unwilling to accept that modern international problem solving needs more diverse and cooler heads. Power in the hands of a single country whether in the hands of a single vantage party or a country where 50% of elected politicians cannot look beyond the nose spell inappropriate; necessitating moral & cultural supplements that are getting debunked regularly as more voices are heard around the world; Blowing holes in doctored narratives.

As for naval power needs of the world, perhaps an emission analysis of the military complex that backs it is in order. The need to find regional commons managed by local actors is never an option considered by such power brokers. The Quad incidentally may result only in further sale of arms as the ME has demonstrated amply & apocalyptically.

The Energy independence based on fossil fuel dominance is not worthy of rebuttal even as climate change becomes (finally) a reality.

Thus the basic premise of US-China rivalry based solutions for international issues just begets think tank funding, not actual answers.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Punabantu May 10, 2021

The question is can the US make its products for export as cheap as Chinese products in relative value terms to out compete China? The economic success of China is clearly seen in the difference between China and the US is clearly seen in economic policy. A look at what former editor of the Financial Times Mr Crowther wrote in his book"An outline of money" he wrote , " “if a purchaser is someone who want D-marks in order to pay for German exports, the fact that he can get his marks cheap is equivalent to a reduction in the price of exports; it will stimulate sale in exactly the same way as an ordinary depreciation of the exchange rate” (Crowther (1951) p.260).
China has depreciated the price of its products to stimulate inflows, while western economic philosophy has been depreciate currencies to stimulate inflows as echoed by the IMF. China follows "who want D-marks in order to pay for German exports" ..by having "who wants Chinese Yuan Renminbi in order to pay for Chinese exports" ...Although Chinese firms quote their exports in US dollars payments are settled in Chinese Yuan Renminbi to the firms as a result of Chinese foreign currency regulations. China follows the underlyinging axioms to the supply and demand doctrine. Economics 101. Adam Smith's underlying axiom saw the doctrine place British goods being bought by the British Sterling pounds. If a German wanted British goods they would have to first change their German D-marks into British Sterling pounds and then use the changed British Sterling pounds to buy British goods, while the D-marks used to buy German goods.
This is the protocol observed when a US dollar wants to buy anything from the European Union (EU). The US dollar first has to be changed into a Euro.
However for most developing countries the US dollar directly purchases their commodities without necessarily purchasing the national currency of those commodities first to buy the commodities.
This naturally undermine Adam Smith's Supply and Demand Doctrine and the true value of the US dollar.
Behind all this is also the IMF fixed cross rates. For example the IMF fixed cross rates on the 28th of May 2021 gave the exchange rate between the two trans-Atlantic nations as US$1 equal to £1.2284. When looking at the Euro the value of the US dollar and Sterling pound in Euro respectively is €0.91027 and €1.11826 giving a IMF fixed cross rate of 1.2284 which mimics the exchange rate of the two trans-Atlantic nations of the UK and USA.
The South African Rand shows a similar picture being ZAR17.4053 per US dollar, and ZAR21.3813 per British Sterling pound giving a cross rate when the two figures are divided of 1.2284. Similarly the North Korea Won with KPW165.848 per Sterling pound against KPW135 per US dollar gives a cross rate of 1.2284. South Korea gives a similar picture. KRW1,517.51 per Sterling pound against KRW1,235.32 per US dollar when divided together gives a cross rate of 1.2284. The Japanese Yen shows the same picture with JYP132.25 per Sterling pound and JYP107.65 per US dollar when divided together gives 1.2284. The Canadian dollar also shows the same image being CAD1.69181 per Sterling pound and CAD1.37721 per US dollar that gives a cross rate of 1.2284. The Indian Rupee at INR92.4590 per Sterling pound and INR75.2657 when divided gives 1.2284 which is the exchange rate between the US and UK.
Even the Chinese Renminbi at CNY8.9449 per Sterling pound against CNY7.15910 per US dollars gives a cross rate of 1.2284. Zambia with ZMK22.1715 per Sterling pound against ZMK17.925 per US dollar gives the same picture.
The question that arises from this is does North Korea have exactly in its money markets the same US dollar and Sterling liquidity to equal the cross rates as determined by the IMF? Does Zambia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, China, India to name a few countries have everyday day in and day out the same liquidity of Sterling pounds and US dollars in their money markets to justify the value given to the IMF fixed cross rates.
To create value free floating cross rates are needed whose value is actually based on existing currency liquidities within each country's money as a function of trade.
Such a condition existed as recounted by the IMF managing director Mr. M. Gutt at Harvard University on the 13th February 1948, when he presented a paper entitled The Practical Problem of Exchange Rates.
Then the official direct Sterling-US dollar rate ruling in Britain and the United States is one Sterling pound to US$4, but the Lira-Sterling and Lira-US dollar direct rates are such that the Sterling pound-US dollar cross-rate in Italy is one Sterling pound to US$2.6. (Tew Brain (1967) p.79)
Americans found it cheaper to purchase goods from the UK via Italy until the IMF stepped in and imposed the IMF fixed cross-rate system in favour of the UK and not Italy nor the US.
Therefore China's cheap products can be counteracted by free floating cross rates. Instead of currency depreciation the market price of the US dollar would vary between markets and currency arbitrage would equalise quotations between markets. Free floating cross rates would put US products on an equal footing with Chinese cheap goods as the "Cheap" US dollar found in other markets would make US goods cheaper in value terms.
The picture that emerges, for example, may see Zambia having trade surplus with Japan . This creates an exchange rate of ¥1,000 per K1 as Japan uses her Yen to purchase Kwachas, Zambia ’s national currency.
To this, Japan uses the purchased Kwachas to buy copper, against which Zambia accumulates Yen in its market as the Fund “[assists] in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments in respect of current transactions between members and in the elimination of foreign exchange restrictions which hampers the growth of world trade.” ((Articles of Agreement: Article I (iv) (2011))
Although the exchange rate in Zambia for the US dollar, based on Zambia' s market liquidity may be K8 per US dollar, in Japan it may well be ¥200 per US dollar as Japan trades more with United States of America than Zambia .
If a citizen in Zambia wanted to import an iphone X from the United States of America pegged at US$500, it would be cheaper to buy the iphone X via Japan , but this would in turn affect market liquidities in both the Zambia and Japan money markets and hence exchange rates as exchange arbitrage operations occur.
As the iphone X is valued at US$500 in Zambia in Kwacha terms based on its K8 per US dollar rate it would cost K4,000, but through Japan the cost of the iphone X would be ¥100,000 at ¥200 per US dollar, being through Zambia ’s Kwacha/Yen exchange rate at ¥1,000 per K1 be worth K100, which is equal in US dollars based on Zambia's US dollar/Kwacha exchange rate at US$12.50.
At US$12.50 for an iphone X, the United States of America would be on an equal footing to deal with another country called China with its cheap exports unless China’s cross-rates are lower in the countries China/ United States of America /Zambia exchange rate configurations.
It would then be a question of quality and finding the best value in currency arbitrage operations. The United States of America would still get its US$500 irrespective of the value step up or step down and the problem of external disequilibrium is addressed provided each country settled its exports in its national currencies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Patrick O. Okigbo III May 9, 2021

The US should address its immigration policy - especially the H1-B work visas - to enable it win the global war for talent. Trump misunderstood this need or simply played to his gallery of nativists. The US is still in good standing to be a destination of choice for top scientists.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Godfree Roberts May 7, 2021

"But Biden also declared that autocrats will not win the future; America will."

China has already won the future, and not simply because its economy is 30% bigger than America's and growing 300% faster.

The real reasons are:

1. Every Chinese in the bottom 50% income bracket owns a home and has an income, plenty of food and clothes, safe streets, health insurance, a pension, and old age care.

2. Chinese kids graduate from high school three years ahead of ours and live longer, healthier lives.

3. Of the 30 rights enumerated in the UN Declaration, China leads the US in 26.

4. There are more hungry children, drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless, poor, and imprisoned people in America than in China.

It's not even close.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen May 6, 2021

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. believes the success of Biden’s China policy “will depend on whether the two powers can cooperate in producing global public goods, while competing in other areas.” The US-China relationship is defined by mutual mistrust and suspicion. A “cooperative rivalry” is competition, which requires “equal attention to both sides of the oxymoron. That will not be easy,” given China being “deadly serious about trying to become the world’s most significant power.”
Trump entered office after campaigning on the promise to stand up to China, seeing the urgency to tackle Beijing’s “huge” trade surplus with the US. The bilateral relations deteriorated further in 2020, after three years of steadiy decline on his watch. Tensions have soared over unfair trade practices, theft of intellectual property worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The US called China a “strategic competitor,” economic predator, and ideological rival.
The author says, “Biden…faces a daunting agenda, and is treating the competition” with China as a “Sputnik Moment.” seeing China as the greatest foreign policy challenge the country faces. This tough approach has strong bipartisan support. In his first speech to Congress last week, Biden took aim at China. Yet he also made the point that he was not seeking conflict with China and said he had told President Xi in his call that "we welcome the competition" to be the dominant global power.
Biden also said that “autocrats will not win the future; America will.” According to the author, “if mishandled, the US-China great-power competition could be dangerous.” Biden pledged to maintain a strong US military presence in the Indo-Pacific, which is seen as a thorn in Beijing’s side. Last year many in China said it would not matter if Biden won in November, because there would be little improvement in the US-China relationship.
“But if the United States plays it right, the rivalry with China could be healthy.” While Chinese leaders maintain the US is deliberately trying to contain their country, constrain its economic growth, limit its global influence, and undermine its political system, little has been done in either country to reconcile their different narratives. Instead, Washington and Beijing continue taking steps that only reinforce the other side’s views.
It takes two to tango. “The success of Biden’s China policy depends partly on China, but also on how the US changes.” The country needs to invest “in human capital as well as in research and development.” Biden promised to boost trade and economic growth by investing in the country’s future. His $2 trillion-project aims to repair and build new infrastructure - catching up with China in an strategic competition.
At the same time, the US “must cope with new transnational threats such as climate change and a pandemic that has killed more Americans than all the country’s wars, combined, since 1945. Tackling these challenges will require cooperation with China and others,” according to the author. The China-US relationship is crucial to both sides and the wider world, with Beijing repeatedly calling on the new administration to improve relations.
Many Chinese are convinced that their country’s rise had led the US to embrace strategic competition. While the US seeks to hold China down, and will not not allow it to undermine the rules-based international order, Beijing sees issues including tensions over Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea as “internatl affairs.” Despite US concerns, Biden knew that a military confrontation would be profoundly against the interests of both countries.
The author is bullish that the US is capable to defend its global position. “China is growing in strength but also has significant weaknesses, while the US has important long-term power advantages.” To start with, the US is surrounded by oceans and friendly neighbours, while China is not. Beijing relies heavily on oil imports from the Middle East - the US is a net energy exporter. China’s working population is aging and dwindling - the US can increase its workforce by attracting overseas talents. Its universities are known for cutting edge science and technology etc.
There is the fear that the rise of other powers , along with China, “will make it more difficult to organize collective action to promote global public goods.” As India, and other emerging economies “continue to grow, America’s share of the world economy will remain below its level of about 30% at the beginning of this century.” However “no country – China included – is about to displace the US in terms of overall power resources in the next few decades.”
Indeed, no country can tackle global threats and challenges - pathogens and climate change - on its own. “In the domain of ecological interdependence, power becomes a positive-sum game,” if it can enhance global cooperation. Not only “the US benefits if China improves its energy efficiency and emits less carbon dioxide,” but the entire planet.
“Some worry that China will link cooperation on tackling climate change to US concessions in traditional areas of competition.” But Beijing will have to think twice about the consequences if “Himalayan glaciers melt or Shanghai is flooded. It was notable that Chinese President Xi Jinping participated in Biden’s recent global climate conference despite bilateral tensions over US human-rights criticisms of China.”
Cooperation in tackling climate change is a good start - a sound strategy to prevent bilateral relations between the world's two largest economies from further deteriorating.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/ez2VcMhzh

美中竞争的逻辑

Subscribe to PS Digital

What Could Cause a US-China War?

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

美中竞争的逻辑

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification