At the dawn of the 21st century, China encountered a series of decisive junctures that could have reshaped not just its destiny but that of the entire world. There was a striking series of missed opportunities and what-ifs that could have turned global events in a different direction.
Perhaps the most significant was the potential for playing a major role in international conflicts – a role Beijing could have had if only its internal political landscape and its leaders’ economic and strategic decisions had permitted China to position itself as one of the world’s preeminent powers, firmly supported by the United States and the global community.
Potential partnership in global conflicts
At the turn of the millennium, the United States found itself engaged in prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. After 2001, China collaborated with the US in Afghanistan, gaining goodwill. Yet after the early problems in Iraq in 2003-2004, China moved away, keeping distant and aloof. That was a time when China should have helped the US in any way it could, volunteering to send troops there. It would have created a strong tie between the countries.
Such an alliance had the potential for shortening the conflicts and laying the foundation for a more collaborative US-China relationship, transforming global geopolitics. Perhaps it also could have helped stabilize the Middle East, creating a peaceful land route across Eurasia and stabilizing oil prices with the normalization of production in Iraq. It might have triggered a new economic boom and possibly prevented the 2008 financial crisis.
Leadership and political reform
In the same years, China was experiencing problems of its own. Between 2002 and 2007, the transition of power from Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao highlighted underlying succession issues and suggested the potential for symbolic political reform in the Mainland. At the same time, the introduction of guided elections could have started in Hong Kong. Private property should have received complete legal protection, and a general amnesty for past economic crimes would have permitted the Chinese ecnomy to turne over a new leaf.
Such moves could have demonstrated a commitment to gradual political openness, enhancing China’s image domestically and internationally. The party and its leadership could have come out stronger.
Addressing elite politics
The issue of “princelings” within the Chinese Communist Party could have been addressed by establishing a hereditary chamber merging state and party structures, which could have been a significant step in formalizing the role of elites while potentially stabilizing political succession and governance practices.
Diplomatic outreach
China’s relationships with its neighbors Japan and India historically have been tense, particularly regarding territorial disputes.
A bold move to cede the Senkaku Islands to Japan and make border concessions to India, possibly paired with importing 10,000 English teachers from India, could have drastically improved relationships. Proficiency in English across China would have bolstered its global competitiveness, in view of English’s role as the international business and diplomatic lingua franca.
Economic reforms during the 2008 crisis
The 2008 financial crisis represented a critical moment for global economies. A decision then by China to make the Renminbi (RMB) fully convertible or maybe to peg it openly to the US Dollar could have transformed the currency into a cornerstone of the global financial system.
Additionally, adopting President Obama’s 2009 proposition to cut emissions in exchange for technology transfers while facilitating a reasonable RMB revaluation could have generated immense goodwill from developing nations impacted by China’s export surge. Moderation of financial stimulus measures during those years could have further stabilized China’s economic growth.
Belt & Road with a twist
The Belt and Road initiative to enhance global connectivity and cooperation has been one of China’s most ambitious international projects. But instead of excluding the US from the plan, moving to situate its headquarters in Los Angeles or San Francisco would have been a stroke of geopolitical sensitivity. Such inclusivity could have cemented China’s status as the world’s leading superpower, supported unrestrainedly by the US and the global community.
In summary, while the path not taken by China would have been paved with complex challenges and potential risks, it also would have ushered in a world with cooperation in global leadership, strategic compromises and a commitment to both domestic and international reform.
The China that could have been is not just a matter of the past. At a time when China’s relations with its neighbors and with the United States have been getting icier while wars inflame Ukraine and the Middle East, those what-ifs might also serve as a chart for a method and ideas that could and should mark the country’s future.
These are examples of projects that may or may not have been raised, and for each past idea, there were certainly plenty of good reasons to discard them. But instead of being about the past, it is about the future.
Yesterday’s excessive prudence prevented the leadership from taking the “proper steps,” thus leading to the present situation. Today, the problems are far more complicated than yesterday, and decisions are more delicate. Yet, more than yesterday, the world needs China’s bold, cool-headed effort and thinking.
While the US is partly distracted by its presidential elections, Beijing may have time to think carefully and try something innovative and truly creative. After the elections, there may not be much time left.
This essay first appeared on Settimana News. It is republished with permission. The original article can be read here.
what if china doesn’t want to be global leader, they just want to be rich. China has a long history with a lot of allies in Ming dynasty and the outcome is those allies became the reason for Ming to collapse. USA should learn from it
Unbelievably stupid!
How could you become global leader if you simply chose to be a lackey of world’s bully like Britain and Canada? Instead of standing up to America and help out the global south?
Asia Times Garbage Collector
Big Huge Garbage
Sissy delusions but will address only one:
The Belt and Road initiative is open to all countries that are genuinely interested in peace and connectivity. If the US is really interested, it is welcomed to take its place alongside Cube and Venezuela. 🙂
totally delusional white people fantasy. Utterly naive and stupid.
Not sure what medication has Mr. Sisci been given! Two years ago, I thought he was sensible and knowledgeable; as if having fallen into a manhole, he now lives in a fantasy world. Too much acid micro dosing?
I stop with I read: “importing 10,000 English teachers from India.”
touché
Just is too intelligent to walk into a can of worms. Its more effective to use subtle diplomacy instead of ham fisted bluster.
What on earth did I read? Did the author is drinking cool aid mixed with gasoline when he wrote this?
This is a really strange article.
First, Sisci faults China for not supporting the US militarily against Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus harming world peace. But China does not invade other countries without grave provocation, and never targets civilians, whether intentionally or unintentionally. How is committing war crimes helpful to world peace?
Then he suggests China missed out on opportunities for political and economic reforms in HK. China is just continuing policies that the British implemented for most of their rule in HK, policies that worked well for a century.
Then he wishes for an amnesty for economic crimes committed by HK economic elites in China. That could have placated the elites, but is not just and fair for the rest.
Sisci then suggests a hereditary chamber for princelings in China, to peacefully formalize their power. That totally goes against the principles of meritocracy, which has driven China and Singapore’s (China’s mentor) success, as well as being morally repugnant. Xi Jinping has instead demolished much of the princelings’ power base, and he did it without any serious political turmoil.
Sisci’s ideas for peace with India and Japan are equally weird. The Senkakus (real name Diaoyutai) are Japanese now, but claimed by both China and Taiwan. How can China agree to surrender it’s claimed territory to Japan, the country that repeatedly invaded China and stole Chinese territory for 60 years?
As for peace with India, why should China cede territory it legitimately claims and occupies to a weaker country? China has done so with Russia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Pakistan and the Central Asian states, to achieve a lasting peace. It may yet do so with India, but the time is not ripe yet.
And China can easily afford genuine Anglo Saxon teachers, so why should it hire OEMs from India?
As for the BRI, nothing China does will change the US’s dislike for it. China has little to gain from being a US ally, and much to lose. The US is an ally of Japan, yet it didn’t hesitate to damage Japan’s economy when it threatened Detroit’s prosperity. With the Ukraine war, America gets Germany to stop buying cheap Russian gas, helps destroy Russia’s gas pipeline to Germany, and then sells gas to Germany at prices far higher than US domestic prices. Rising energy costs then force German companies to shut down and relocate, sometimes to the US. So China has little to commit war crimes as a US ally and risk it’s own economy in the process.
China’s last 4 generations of leaders have done very well for China, building it into a superpower admired by most leaders of the Global South. It has been a hard and arduous road, but the results are stupendous. The results are unimaginable and deeply disturbing to a elitist Euro-centric like Sisci, which is why he fantasizes that China’s leaders could have done far better with his ideas.