Is Bismarck China’s Man?
By James Holmes
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Yahoo Buzz
Mixx
Google Buzz
PlurkSome China watchers look to Bismarck as a comparison for China. It’s a less reassuring analogy than they think.
Would a China that models its diplomacy on that of Otto von Bismarck qualify as a ‘responsible stakeholder’ in the globalized, US-led international order? Not unless it takes Bismarck’s conservative statesmanship out of historical context, ignoring what it took to bring about a German-led order in Europe, how the ‘Iron Chancellor’ managed that order, and what befell Germany and Europe after he left office. Taken as a whole, German unification and its aftermath represent more a cautionary tale than an example worth imitating.
Yet China watchers in the West are still debating this question, studying the implications of the Imperial German experience for China, Asia, and the United States. Those leery of Chinese ambitions warn that a strong, revisionist China could distort the regional balance of power, giving rise to intense rivalries across Asia. They typically point to the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm II, which marched Europe over the precipice in 1914. Those of a more optimistic bent proffer Bismarck as the executor of a benign, low-profile grand strategy that preserved peace in Europe for two decades. A Beijing enamoured of Bismarck, they maintain, will try its best to foster cooperative—or non-confrontational, at any rate—relations with fellow Asian powers while deflating worries about its capabilities and intentions.
Many Chinese agree that Bismarck offers an example worth emulating and that Beijing must avoid the recklessness of Wilhelm II. In 2006, for example, China Central TV, an outlet run by Beijing’s State Council, produced a 12-part series entitled The Rise of Great Powers, which was accompanied by a series of eight books. The TV series includes a particularly instructive episode on Germany, one of nine countries it examines from the past 500 years. Worshipful filmmakers credited Bismarck with securing 20 years of peace for newly united Germany. The book series, similarly, showers praise on the Iron Chancellor for muting envy and fear in European capitals, enmeshing German security with that of other great powers, and keeping a vengeful France—from which German armies seized the border provinces of Alsace and Lorraine in 1870-1871—mainly in check.
The uncanny parallels between the German and Chinese experiences help explain why the Iron Chancellor has beguiled Chinese audiences. Tang Yongsheng, the deputy director of the Strategy Institute at China’s National Defense University, urges Beijing to adopt the Bismarckian paradigm to consummate its peaceful rise. ‘Recalling the end of the 19th century,’ maintains Tang, ‘Bismarck in Germany drew up a complex geosecurity system; by building a dazzling alliance network with countries on the periphery, he eased the strategic pressure of European powers on Germany, avoided the predicament of having enemies on both sides, and successfully isolated France.’ China should replicate Bismarck’s feat on a worldwide scale, anchoring itself in multilateral alignments spanning the globe in order to establish an ‘unassailable position’ for itself. Chinese strategists’ enthusiasm for Bismarck may not be universal, but Beijing is clearly investigating German history as one source of inspiration.
Image credit: Matt Morgan
Michael Turton
Kissinger is indeed an eloquent spokesman for Beijing’s interests; not surprising since his consulting firm makes big bucks consulting in China. This is something that the article should have mentioned.
China may be inspired by Bismarck, but the parallel is wrong. China now is a lot more like Japan in the 20s and 30s, seeking to stupidly upset an international order that was letting it have whatever it wanted. If China were wise it would discard its military expansion plans and focus on building up its economy and fixing its environment, since the international system is happy to provide China with whatever it needs (aren’t markets wonderful?). At the moment no one threatens China and no one will for the foreseeable future. So what exactly is this military expansion for? The answer is obvious, for those willing to listen to the lessons of history.
And don’t talk to me about China’s great power status. Every time in history one hears the ringing claim “We need an X commensurate with our status!” bloodshed is sure to follow.
+++++
Understanding the pressures Chinese leaders live under, economic and nationalistic, is key to finding solutions to our diplomatic disagreements.
+++++
As a matter of fact it is very easy to understand China’s “pressures”, quite clear to those of us who live under its threats to maim and murder if it doesn’t get its way. No, communicating to them that the current wave of expansion that threatens Japan, Taiwan, India, the nations bordering the South China Sea, Russia, and even Korea, is unacceptable and will only result in wars that will set everyone back, while working within the system will enrich everyone, is the key to managing China. However, I don’t see this happening without the usual bloody messes of hegemonic warfare. The signal that the endgame has begun will be when Japan is forced to start majorly expanding and upgrading its navy and air force in response to Chinese military expansion.
Michael
Chris
Let me ask a provocative question-if China’s population comprises roughly 16% of the worlds humans-why is it that China does not have a right to change the world order? Where Germany and China really differ is in scale. China is not merly a nation-state-it’s a massive entity with truly enormus challenges linked to population. It could also be the engine of economic prosperity for the world’s other 5 billion souls in the 21st century. There is not a real underlying basis for a strategic standoff between China and the US. Much of what has happened is because of China finding it’s feet and feeling its new power. Understanding the pressures Chinese leaders live under, economic and nationalistic, is key to finding solutions to our diplomatic disagreements. It is in everyone’s interests that we do so.
LY Fong
This should precede the previous reference to the website http://www.china-wire.org
Comparative historical analyses of rising and falling powers are, of course, standard security-speak but it is time for Western analysts (i.e. American and European English-speakers) to immerse themselves in learning the specifics of what was termed Far East, Middle East and Near East regions so that Eurocentric assumptions do not persist. Asian peasant nationalism was misperceived and oversimplified as “Communism” instead of appreciating each country and society’s own unique history and conditions. In the United States, Senator Joseph McCarthy and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had inordinate influence in defining “Communism” in a simplified manner which has left a legacy of misunderstanding to this very day. The Nonaligned Movement of newly independent Asian and African countries met in Bandung, Indonesia to attempt to avoid the Cold War hostilities which trapped client states and spheres of influence which persisted far too long. Americans must learn to move from superpower and bully, to being a good neighbor who understands interdependence and mutual benefit in a multipolar world. Instead, U.S. military exercises and power projection (including missile defense)in the Western Pacific, South China Sea and Malacca Straits are circling China and building new tensions and starting another arms race.
For news and information sources directly from China available in English,
see http://www.china-wire.org
Fabian
In many respects, perhaps Klemens von Metternich is a better parallel. As esteemed a statesman as Metternich was, his overwhelming focus and challenge was to maintain the internal stability of Austria-Hungary. Part of this effort was to attempt to persuade other European regimes to contain and suppress domestic revolutions which might spread by contagion to the empire… hence the Berlin Convention of 1833. China seems to be struggling with much of the same today, Middle Eastern revolutions and all.
Metternich was also challenged in his discreet and largely ineffectual struggle to reform the reactionary bureaucracy, the empire’s centuries-old and backwards institutions, and the shortsightedness reactionary politics of Francis I. China is struggling to reform it’s own reactionary institutions in much the same sense, and it’s leaders are buying time against inevitable popular explosion, just as Metternich spent his entire career doing.
Concerns of domestic stability shaped all aspects of Metternich’s foreign policy and diplomacy. And despite his successes abroad, Metternich ultimately failed in his primary mission to protect internal stability at home at all costs. A pro-democracy mob in Vienna drove him into exile in 1848. He fled with his family to London.
On an unrelated matter, the photo in the caption of this article is not of a Chinese city at all. It is, in fact, the San Diego skyline, in the US. The aircraft carrier in the background is the USS Midway, CV-41 (now a museum).
RJD
Superb analysis.
The issue is that China may assume a right to change the system, more as a measure of its power than from a clear strategy of what is really in its long-term interest. Changing the current American free trade and freedom of the seas policy which has so greatly benefited China would be foolish, but may be tempting anyway merely because chian feels it can do it.
China should study not just Bismarck, but classical international relations theory in whole. Study the concept of balance of power. A substantial Chinese push into an assertive foreign policy will result in Asian nations allying with the USA to restore the balance.
As proof, just look at the higher criticism of US policy since it became the paramount global power.
YiJiun
China will learn from many nations and derive at her own way to deal with the US. Actually, if you consider this scenario whereby the US ceased to exist (hypothetical), no right-minded nation would dare provoke China unilaterally, even the EU as a whole wouldn’t.
I think it’s rather foolish to keep hoping that China would remain submissive to the US and it’s just as foolish to link it to Nazi Germany. This shows the evil intentions of ‘analysts’ who propagate such ideas. This is destructive to global civilisation and by the way, if Nazi Germany had the nukes, the world would never be the same. Don’t play with fire thinking you have full control over it.
However, Western ‘democracies’ are built and maintained on bloodbaths and destructions. Many in the ROW are naive to think that everyone could live peacefully in a ‘democratic’ world, without any logical reasoning. While I do believe in the advantages of democracy to a nation or bloc that practises it, it ultimately relies on sacrificing other comparable powers to maintain. The crux of the problem is the ‘leading free’ nation is still operating a sectarian political system. Why? I don’t understand why Obama had to steer clear of his muslim ‘identity’ (he’s not a muslim, but his father was) to be acceptable by the people. If the US is truly democratic and apply this standard throughout the ‘free world’, does it dare let all the people of the ‘free world’ elect a Common President and make him the ‘Leader’ of the ‘free world’. If the US allows that with its good buddy, India, only then I would take my hats off to the US and oppose the communist party in China.
But, can the US allow its fate to fall into the hands of more than 1 billion Indians. If you truly believe in the superiority of Democracy, what’s there to be afraid of? Didn’t you call India a model of the world? Or do you mean it is a good catwalker? No wonder India has so many gorgeous Miss Universes and worlds!
I mean, take a leaf out of nature. An ant colony is like a democratic bloc which is very united internally but extremely violent externally towards other colonies. The reason the ‘free world’ is peaceful internally is because there’s only one head, the US ( which again seems ironic – shouldn’t the head of a ‘democracy’ bloc be coming out of India – the Largest Democracy in the World?)
Again, this sort of hypocrisy is for all to judge and don’t think that others are dim-witted. India is just tolerating in order to deal with China, not realising it’s just a chess piece to be sacrificed to pull China down. It’s most stupid for China and India to fight each other so that the Masters can be Masters forever. I think it’s precisely this sort of mentality that the West looks so ‘highly’ upon India. I also pamper my dog as it makes me happy while it remains eating dog food (at least it listens to me and wouldn’t snatch my food unless I left it unattended, but then again, it relies on me for food and thus, it’s under my ‘control’.)
I don’t think that my dog would compete with me to sit on the table, so it’s ok. I treat him well as long as he is obedient and fend off any intruders for me. In a dog sense, he is a responsible member of my family.
If you cannot accept China, you would lead a miserable life in the future and it wouldn’t be the initiative of China. You have to be responsible for creating the situation under your ‘architecture’. Too bad much of the developed world cannot face the reality and would be ‘phased off’ in time to come.
DoubleUP
YiJiun means keep rambling on in my African language. I respect an American more than a Chinese, cus the later will always respect my interest in any stipulated transaction than the former.
I dread the day the Chinese will lead the helm of global affair; very shrewd fellows. I hope that day never comes. What a chaotic world we all gonna face, if this ever happen. Matter of fact, I will never want to speak chinchonk….. oop, rambling also
chanto
Meant ‘reverse’
chanto
Nothing wrong in learning from great powers but the methods of implementation or replicating their successes are matters of great concerned. In fact, China should learn from the United States and Germany, and England, and France just as the United States learned nation-state building from these former European colonial powers.
China is not in a position to revere western paradigm; the more they learn from it; although they may resist, but most likely assimilate in the long run—”transformation and evolution of the Chinese political system”. Western World needs China as a global partner–they are very resourceful!
Nguoiphanbien
People like you know who seem to have too much time on their hands to speculate on this or that. And then this ‘this’ or ‘that’ gets attached to China even though they never participated in the conversation, and the Internet simply mindlessly spreads the idea(s) as if China initiated it.
The falsehood usually goes like this: some non-Chinese throws in an idea (the kind of idea that most often generates a lot of negativities towards China) and tries to impress upon readers that this is an idea coming from China. As a result, it generates loads of anti-China comments and the pro-Chinese crowds chime in to defend the honour of their country, rightly so, and it goes on and on and on. I found myself most often on the defence of the pro-China crowds even though I am not Chinese but for one simple reason, the pro-China crowds are always defenders and not provocateurs. The anti-China crowds always fire the first shot, are always guilty of being provocative in the first place.
John
I think Mao in his later years and his wife and supporters after his death probably changed the potential for a single leader and close family to stay for ever in China.
That is one of the issues that China shows the world, that no one should stay in power for a long term as leader. There are a number of other lessons I have learnt recently from them that could be used.
Its just a shame that that the supporters of the negative sometimes outshine any positives that could be learnt. Germany under Bismark had its good points, though it was the negatives that ended up dominating the global society and caused war.
Its a pity we cant just take the good from a person/country and tell the person/ country to shut up and have a drink in the corner until they sober up when they start pushing thier extreme views on others.
Though I guess we all have differences in what we consider good.
Grant
It’s not at all uncommon for people to misuse history to try to describe current events. As for Bismark, I’d remind any Chinese leader that he also managed to gain the constant enmity of France. Admittedly France was already opposed to Germany but taking the Alsace-Lorraine was probably going a bit too far.
June Teufel Dreyer
China has no Bismarck. But if a comparable figure seemed to be emerging, the equivalent of Wilhelm would immediately dismiss him for fear that he would become too powerful. The specter of another Mao looms large within the Standing Committee of the Poliburo. This small elite forms a collectivity united to preserve their personal power and privileges in the name of the CCP. Protection of the status quo is more important than mortgaging their future on the machincations of a far-sighted statesman.
Willem van Kemenade
Another Mao ? With cultist excesses, terror, feudalism and primitivism in the 21st century with internet and social media ? Well well ?