China, Free Rider or Contributor?
By ZHU FENG
In an interview early last August with the New York Times, U.S. President Obama remarked that China had been a global free rider for the past 30 years, and that the U.S. does not expect China to do anything substantial in dealing with Iraq. Obama is in fact not the first to accuse China of being a free rider in the international community. In September 2005, U.S. former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said that China should become a responsible stakeholder, implying that China should take more international responsibility by helping Western countries led by the U.S. to maintain international order. The NY Times interview, however, marked the first time a U.S. President had publicly criticized China.
China’s Huge Contribution Devalued
In international relations, the epithet free rider usually refers to countries that are unwilling to act, or that shun their responsibilities when international issues, crises, and conflicts arise. Since 2005, constant criticisms of China in U.S. academic and political circles for its so-called free riding have shaped the national mindset as regards judging and defining China’s foreign diplomacy. Tom Christensen, professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State, is a main representative of those in this segment. In their view China, in spite of its rising international status and strength, is reluctant to help the U.S. and other Western countries deal effectively with international and regional affairs. It is moreover unwilling to sustain the costs entailed in assuming the international responsibilities that its newly-gained status entails, instead focusing on its own interests. Christensen once remarked in this regard that China’s is an “abrasive diplomacy.” This, of course, is an unfair judgment.
Since the reform and opening-up drive came into effect in 1978, China’s economic growth and national development have in fact contributed greatly to world prosperity, stability, and cooperation. As the world’s largest exporter and second largest consumption market, China, with its vigorous and sound development, has become a major engine of world economic growth. Reports from such international organizations as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund point out that China’s sustained and rapid economic growth is critical to world economic prospects. Since the late 1990s, China’s entry into the WTO, gradual internationalization of the RMB exchange rate, and advancing of economic and financial cooperation between member countries of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have steadily injected fresh vitality into the world economy. Today, China is a main flag bearer for world free trade, regional economic integration, and globalization. China’s cooperation with Africa, Latin America, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East in energy, mineral resources, and economy is reshaping the traditional geo-economies of these regions. In 2013, the trade volume between China and Africa surpassed US $200 billion. The same year that between China and Southeast Asia stood at more than US $400 billion, and between China and Latin America exceeded US $280 billion. China was thus the most dynamic contributor to global and regional sustainable development. Since the early 1990s, China’s economic aid and social assistance to the developing world in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have topped US $280 billion. The vibrant economic and social development that China has generated in less developed regions over the past 20 years exceeds by far that emanating from Western countries.
China’s rise has reshaped the world economic landscape. East Asia, Europe, and North America have become three economic powers, and the Asia-Pacific region is witnessing the world’s most rapid economic development and trade growth. World wealth has thus been re-distributed. It is to be expected that, after 200 years, the East and West should reach level pegging in their development. The U.S.’s free riding accusations clearly devalue China’s huge contribution to world economic development and politics over the past 20 years.
Obama’s comment about China free riding actually reflects disappointment at China’s unwillingness to follow the U.S.’s lead in forcefully interfering in world affairs. Since the 9.11 Attack, China has extended its support to the U.S. and participated in the world campaign to crack down on international terrorist forces. However, China and many other countries made clear their opposition to the Iraq War that the U.S. started in March 2003, which constituted a unilateral American military intervention that circumvented the UN. The current chaotic situation, apparent in the ferocity of emerging international terrorist forces, proves the far-sightedness of such countries that included China. The U.S. adopted the pose of liberator of the Iraqi people by overthrowing the Saddam Regime through war, with the intent of implementing its democratic reforms in the Middle East. However, the endless turmoil and disorder in the region stands testament to the bankruptcy of American power politics and presumptuous imposition of its values and systems on other countries. The current Afghanistan situation is another example.
It is China’s non-endorsement of the U.S.’s world concept and interfering internationalism that has prompted it to label China as an “irresponsible free rider.” This accusation is groundless, and in total disregard of China’s positive role in the world.
Harmony in Diversity
Disputes and diversified views according to countries’ different interests are inevitable in international affairs. When faced with grim international issues, crises, or conflicts, the positive role of a country is embodied not in unilateral action borne of its particular evaluation and judgment of the situation, but in its ability to reach consensus with other countries and adhere to the UN Charter and principles. In American diplomacy, praise or criticism of a country’s behavior is not based on the UN Charter or generally acknowledged international standards, but on the concept of the liberal international order with itself at the center. The U.S.’s persistence in this stance, so ignoring the diversity of world civilizations and development paths, the situations of different countries and their opinions, indeed constitutes irresponsible behavior towards the international community.
