One of the debates among international affairs scholars relates to the "polarity" of the world; how the number of big, important states with global reach affects the politics of the globe. We're right now in a "unipolar" world (only the US has global reach and power). We used to be in a "bipolar" world (Cold War: the US and the USSR each had global reach and power). The Cold War was characterized by hostility between the "poles" that never quite reached open warfare, but came close. It was not a happy, smiley-faced, sort of time. Once the USSR died as a "pole", the world got to address a whole bunch of issues that had been left dying while the Cold War was fought out: human rights, AIDS, global poverty, etc. Hence, many IR scholars look at a "bipolar" world with some degree of fear or trepidation: do two powerful states automatically become hostile to each other?
They wonder if another pole might rise up, and which other state it might be to challenge the US's global reach and power. Hmmmmm.....
His new 25-bedroom palace is clad in midnight-blue Chinese roof tiles. His air force trains on Chinese jets. His subjects wear Chinese shoes, ride Chinese buses and, lately, zip around the country in Chinese propjets. He has even urged his countrymen to learn Mandarin and nurture a taste for Chinese cuisine.
That President Robert G. Mugabe rules Zimbabwe, which resembles China about as much as African corn porridge tastes like moo shu pork, is irrelevant. Tightening his embrace of all things Chinese, the 81-year-old Mr. Mugabe, Zimbabwe's canny autocrat for 25 years, arrived in Beijing on Saturday for six days of talks with China's leaders, led by President Hu Jintao.
(snip)
The Chinese are widely reported to covet a stake in Zimbabwe's platinum mines, which have the world's second largest reserves, and Mr. Mugabe's government has hinted at a desire to accommodate them. The mines' principal operator denies being pressured to deal with the Chinese, but negotiations are under way to sell a stake to as-yet-unidentified Zimbabweans. The operator has postponed major spending on the mines, citing political uncertainty.
Meanwhile, from Angolan oil to Zambian copper mines, China is investing billions of dollars securing access to resources for its fast-growing economy. And because they show few scruples about their partners' human rights policies, the Chinese are becoming entrenched in some states, including Zimbabwe and Sudan, that bridle at Western criticism.
Big country, lots of people, big appetite for resources, growing armed forces (including an explanding blue-water navy), and lots of money (courtesy of the US's ever-expanding need for cheap consumer goods; thanks Wal-Mart).
The US declares that Saudi Arabia's sovereignty is critical to our national security, and we base some of our military there and sometimes fight wars, because of the resources that Saudi Arabia has that are critical to our economy. Now, if the Chinese make essentially the same argument (parts of Africa are critical to our economy, those countries invited us in, we're going to start basing the Chinese military there), can we really have a leg to stand on if we argue against them?
Everyone say it with me now, "Bipolar".
(Pretty soon it'll just roll off your tongue; you'll be saying it a lot.)
Posted by baltar at July 24, 2005 09:29 PM | TrackBack | Posted to International AffairsBaltar - Re: us in Saudi and the Chinese in Africa, are you saying that consistency is expected in US foreign policy? Really?
Posted by: Armand at July 25, 2005 12:04 PM | PERMALINKNo, just saying that some of the leadership in the rest of the world might find a Chinese claim that looked like a US claim (us in SA, them in Africa) somewhat plausible. Hence, we might find it a tad difficult to put any impediments in their way. Something along the lines of "you reap what you sow."
Posted by: baltar at July 25, 2005 04:21 PM | PERMALINK