Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

ARTICLE: New Protests in Western China After Deadly Clashes, By EDWARD WONG, July 7, 2009

The usual response from China on any internal political dissent that suggests a loosening of central political control over the provinces. Meanwhile, actual economic control continues to decentralize to large companies, local governments and entrepreneurs.

This is a tricky path for the Party: allowing markets and local governments to rule in economic terms while maintaining the strong centralized political grip. It's a recipe for too few good answers emerging--and competing--as China's economic development continues to become more complex. It's also a poor response to local political corruption and local environmental abuse.

And it will not limit efforts like this by smaller ethnic groups to achieve political autonomy. Indeed, it is only likely to increase such efforts over time.

As always, many observers will declare this--yet again--time to throw in the towel on China's future. Their answer will be antagonism, elevation of threats and confrontation with one-fifth of the world.

I see no good reason to take on that struggle on the basis of China not meeting our definition of democracy. I don't have that high of an opinion of the Communist Party there, nor such a low opinion of the Chinese people.

As I have declared for years and continue to declare, I want the United States to focus on enemies on globalization's advance, meaning enemies of connectivity. As globalization spreads, it's enough for me that you allow economic connectivity to skyrocket, without necessarily making the same floodgates open on political pluralism or expression (my longtime mantra being, everyone wants connectivity, but many want to control content). To some, such thinking is naive. They want political realities to exist when economic conditions do not support them.

But as an economic determinist, I find such thinking--in return--the height of naivete. Indeed, it's truly Maoist!

When I go out to slay dragons, they have to provide real threats, not merely alternative development models.

I know such an attitude will never suffice for many. They want to declare war on everything that does not meet the American standard. I consider such thinking the antithesis of grand strategy.

I don't choose to fight everyone I can; I choose to fight only those I think will present me with a sufficient payoff for the sacrifice involved. For when the hotheads enter into the discussion, most rational thought walks out.

Yes, the Obama team will go through the same temptations on China that every administration goes through. I expect the Pentagon to demand certain things. But I expect Clinton and the White House to be smarter than that.