After the Suez campaign of 1956, people began to look closely at the British Empire, or what was left of it, and determined that it was a declining power.
The
attack on the Suez Canal may or may not have contributed to the military or
economic diminishment of Britain, but it certainly moderated Britain’s aura in
the eyes of the world. However, there was one unforgettable thing about that
era. It was that in an act of transparent denial, the Brits maintained that their country was declining because it was spending too much money propping up
the countries of the Commonwealth. It was, of course, a lie that nobody bought.
In
contrast to the British situation, the Soviet Union (USSR) was supporting some
of its satellites, and was not talking about it. There is no doubt that it
could have done better had it not been burdened by the self-imposed duty to help
those satellites. But the economy of the USSR was also plagued with other
problems that maintained it in the underperforming category, a lesson that
China learned and avoided the associated problems. In addition to all that,
China took advantage of an opportunity the USSR never had.
It
is that, right after the Second World War, the Soviet Union was confronted by a
Western group of nations that formed the NATO military alliance, forcing the Soviets
to fight for their survival by devoting much resources to their own military, and
make it stand up to NATO’s might. Thus, the USSR managed to survive NATO’s
policy of containment, doing so for a number of decades at the expense of
developing its own economy. In the end, however, the Soviet Union succumbed
when the economy could no longer keep it afloat, and was itself destined to crumble.
What
also happened during that time, is that China got busy readying its economy for
the giant leap it has taken without worrying about a NATO-like force
threatening it while the economy was developing. And so, it can be said that
China reached the level of development that it did, thanks in part to the
unofficial nuclear umbrella that the Soviet Union has (willingly or unwillingly)
extended to it during several decades.
Forced
into a difficult situation, the Soviet Union could only work on two national projects:
a military that was capable of standing up to NATO; and the rapid development
of the country’s civilian infrastructure without which there could not have
been a strong military. What the Soviets had to neglect, was the array of industrial
and commercial establishments that would have been dedicated to produce
consumer goods for local consumption and for export.
And
so, while the Soviet Union looked like a military giant protecting an
impoverished population, China postponed working on building its military till
now. In fact, it just started a massive program to build a modern military, and
this makes it look like a rich nation building a powerful military that’s meant
to protect its people and, as importantly, its wealth-producing engine. Compared
to the Soviet Union, this is a very different kettle of fish.
The
question now is this: Can America contain China the way it did the Soviet
Union? And this brings us to the article that came under the title: “Containment
won’t work with China,” written by Sean Durns, and published on October 27,
2021 in The Washington Examiner.
Here,
in condensed form, is what Sean Durns had to say about the subject matter:
“The United States and China have been
engaged in strategic competition for years. For the US to prevail, it must
recognize that the successful strategy of the last Cold War, containment, will
not work against its new adversary. Containment isn’t the right strategy for an
increasingly assertive China. The Soviet Union was largely economically walled
off from the world. This is not the case for China, which has economic reach,
growth, and worldwide integration dwarfing that of its communist forebearer.
The US economy, as well as the economies of its key allies, are deeply
connected to, indeed dependent on, China. And it goes both ways. China’s
economy gives it leverage over US allies, allowing Beijing to disrupt efforts
by Washington to contain it. Western Europe has also shown a willingness to
prioritize immediate economic profits over long-term security concerns”.
What Sean Durns says is that the Chinese
economy is structured in such a way, it would be futile to try containing China.
The reality is even more striking when you take into account the fact that
America’s economy is intertwined with that of China. This means that in trying
to contain that country, America will hurt itself. The same goes for America’s
European allies who already decided that doing business with China is more
profitable that cozying up to America.
If America were foolish enough to try
containing China or isolate it, says Sean Durns, it will fail. It’s because all
that America will accomplish, is put itself outside the new global economic
system which is now taking shape. Embarking on such an adventure will put America
out in the cold, forcing it to look in, and regret the time and effort it spent
trying to isolate China.
For these reasons, Sean Durns recommends that
America abandon the effort to create a new Asian NATO, and engage instead on
implementing a “strategy of denial” that will discourage China from dominating
the Asia Pacific region.
How to do that, has yet to be determined.