Seeking Balance

Andrew Leonard, at Salon's blog, How the World Works, writes:

Fine. China's citizens think the U.S. is trying to contain China, and they're right. But what about another poll result -- a two year old BBC survey of 23,000 people in 22 countries that found 48 percent considered China "a positive global influence," as compared to 38 percent thinking the same about the U.S.

That's some pretty bad public relations management by the United States government. China routinely jails human rights activists and journalists, operates state censorship on a more massive scale than any other country on earth, suffers from devastating pollution and vast (and growing) inequality, props up some of the worst governments in the world, and allows ruthless exploitation of its workers by foreign companies to depress wages for everyone else around the world. And it still comes off smelling like a rose compared to the U.S. Wacky.

There are two psychological games at work here in the public's mind. The first is a simple matter that, with America having been dominant in the world for more than two generations, it's racked up a pretty impressive history of environmental destruction, civil rights abuse, and most critically oppression of various national movements abroad. So a litany of China's problems is automatically compared to the kinds of things that the US has done, which while aren't nearly of the same degree of nastiness (in most cases) are comparable to those who want to compare.

The second game is related to the first, and has more to do with geopolitics, I think. Given the American dominance post-Cold War (a period, we should remember, we're 15 years in to now) there is an understandable - though admittedly unfair - tendency among nations who feel they've been marginalized under the US behemoth to a) overplay the evils of the American government, and b) underplay the severity of Beijing's real crimes. "Marginalized" nations don't just include the developing world, neither. South Korea (in my view, correctly) sees the American obsession with war against Pyongyang as a larger threat to their security than Pyongyang itself. Other middle powers see themselves as lacking any kind of autonomy in the global environment so long as America is the unchallenged hegemon. The idea that animated the better parts of the non-aligned movement was the belief that, by eschewing an allegiance with either of the Cold War powers, small nations would be able to achieve more national autonomy.

So there's a real, understandable desire to see China - even authoritarian, polluted, unequal China - as some kind of counterweight to the US. That said, China is not the only rival for the US' affections: The EU has been getting a lot of love as a potential counterweight, driven by the French (and the German left) who want the EU to play a countering role. Less noticed is that Russia has, since before it was Russia again, wanted the EEC to develop in to a security role sans America. Russia continues to see the US on European soil as a strategic threat - a view that wasn't lessened by putting US troops in Ukraine this year.

That same poll which said that people saw China as a positive global influence also saw Europe as having a positive global influence, with people wanting Europe to play a greater role in the world. People want a counterweight to America, and they aren't exactly being choosy. They'd probably prefer the Swedes as a global superpower, but if Bejing is all they get, that's what they'll take.

The same poll showed that 55% of Americans saw greater European influence as a bad thing, which I can only describe as insane. But as I've said before, there is a pronounced (and insane) desire in American public debate to see America rule the world forever, and an expectation by the American public that this will continue to be the case. So the idea even that the Europeans - about as non-threatening a rival as you could ask for - would increase their influence is seen as a bad thing by more than half of the population. Brilliant.