A G-2 Mirage? If You're Thirsty, You Should Double Check for Water

In The G-2 Mirage (subscription only, support your local library), Elizabeth Economy and Adam Segal argue that the US should avoid engaging China bilaterally, and focus on a multilateral approach to China. As a mirage is a real optical phenomenon, I assume that the authors are instead alluding to a Looney Tunes-like, heat stroke inspired hallucination of an oasis in a dangerous desert. Though the authors make several erudite observations about conflicting foreign policy goals between the US and China, their ultimate recommendation for a "sit down with Japan, the EU, and other key allies to begin coordinating their policies toward China" is dangerous. Coordination between the "West" + Japan without China at the table has a high probability of alienating and antagonizing Beijing, and without an effective EU leadership it is very difficult to coordinate anything.

A brief summary of shared US-Sino foreign policy goals according to the authors:

• "Kickstarting economic growth and maintaining an open global economy." Ending this crisis.
  
• "Maintaining peace and stability in East Asia." Not just Korea, but Myanmar, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. China shares borders with many of the most dangerous places in the world.
  
• "Halting climate change." Agriculture has the chance of being significantly impacted by climate change (p19) if the availability of water resources declines.
  

And a summary of foreign policy problems:

• "Opposing perspectives on sovereignty and humanitarian intervention." China takes a more hands-off approach, while the US prefers to sponsor UN Sec. Council resolutions and other methods of intervention. Angola, Democractic Republic of Congo, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe are specifically mentioned as countries where China has taken the side of the oppressive and abusive regimes.
• "China's authoritarian but decentralized political and economic system." 天高皇帝远。China's ability to implement laws on product safety and environmental safety is frustrated by both the disconnect between Beijing edict and local government implementation, and a lack of transparency and accountability across bureaucratic spectrum.
• "Cooperation on climate change may prove even more challenging." The authors are concerned about the lack of transparency in emissions reporting, and the US true willingness to share clean technologies with China.
• A disconcerting military relationship. China's secrecy is intentional to shield its true (and most likely weak) capabilities, and the capabilities China does reveal suggest that they are focusing on weapon systems that can attack US aircraft carrier groups.
• A "contentious" economic relationship. "Washington insists on currency reform, more open markets, and the protection of intellectual property rights. Beijing, by contrast, generally wants to be left alone to conduct its business as it sees fit."

I think these are all valid points. It is truly amazing that the US and China are so close. But just because we have so many points of contention with China does mean that we should risk damaging our relationship by going behind their back and forming a monolithic and coordinated policy to deal with China. China, Japan, the US, and the EU member countries have all historically been and/or all have great potential to become rivals. When blocks of potential rivals too conspicuously team up against another, it conveniently sets the stage for conflict (okay, maybe the link is a little dramatic...).

The approach needs to be multilateral with the major stakeholders at the table. I'm thinking the US, Japan, the EU, maybe the UK, Russia and China are the ones that need to meet and work towards that future that Hayek wrote tends toward human and societal development. This group includes all of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus a couple of the WWII losers that have rebounded so well.

The authors do argue for a multilateral approach, but the EU's impotent power structure needs to be reformed first. The G-2 solution is so attractive because agreement among fewer parties is typically easier to reach than agreement between more parties. Before we can work with the major stakeholders, the EU needs a strong leadership position. If the EU doesn't have a seat at the table, and France and Germany each do, there will be no end to the nationalistic European whining we'll be forced to endure, and this will weaken any policies the group arrives at.

Though the G-2 might indeed be a mirage, we need to take a multilateral approach from the beginning to avoid alienating China, and work together in digging a well to create an oasis in the desert the world is currently passing through.