OP-ED: “No More Chinese Whispers,” by James McGregor, Wall Street Journal, 12 September 2006, p. A20.I’ve long said I expect the Chinese to be Chinese and nothing more. That’s an apologist’s lament to some, cultural realism to others. I just remain amazed at how little people in America understand about how much China has changed in just two generations since the Cultural Revolution. I mean, it’s a stunning distance traveled, akin to the road America traversed from 1865 to 1905.
POLITICS & ECONOMICS: “China’s Media Curbs Aim to Bolster Xinhua: Beijing Hopes to Create a Global News Competitor; Plan Draws Criticism From U.S., EU,” by Andrew Browne, Wall Street Journal, 13 September 2006, p. A4.
EDITORIAL: “Responsible China?” Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 11-17 September 2006, p. 25.
ARTICLE: “Chinese Official Calls on U.S. To Jointly Develop Oil Fields,” by Shai Oster, Wall Street Journal, 12 September 2006, p. A14.
Does it fit our model of political development? No. But we suffered a lot of crappy and inept and corrupt government across those decades, just like China does today.
But to me, the similarities in social and economic change are stunningly similar.
James McGregor wrote a great book on China called One Billion Customers, and his recent WSJ op-ed is brilliantly good.
My favorite stretch:
The Chinese people want the rule of law and fairness. But they also want a government that solves problems and focuses on progress. The many vainglorious and venal local Communist Party cadres are roundly detested. But Chinese who experienced the chaos of the Cultural Revolution also believe that America must be purposely seeking to destabilize China. Surely the U.S. isn’t so naïve as to think that instant democracy would make China a better place?So how to fix?
Half a world away, our sensationalist broadcast media is equally adept at demonizing China for the American populace. When CNN’s Lou Dobbs discovered that ranting generates ratings, he quit asking CEOs thoughtful questions about China and now focuses on flogging it for stealing jobs and unfairly threatening U.S. economic preeminence. Bill O’Reilly and his infotainment-obsessed brethren at Fox stir up a similar stew of angry anti-Chinese cornpone. And neither network has any trouble finding like-minded and uninformed talking heads from the Congress eager to obscure their own leadership and policy failings by laying America’s economic insecurities and difficulties at China’s doorstep. During a book tour that took me to many American broadcast outlets in the past year the producers invariably asked: “Are you our anti-China or our pro-China guest?” They were baffled when I answered that I was the “let’s-try-to-understand-China guest.” Our TV screens may be in color, but discussion of China are exclusively in black and white.
The rest of the world doesn’t share our fear and loathing of China. For the past 15 years, its diplomats have undertaken a very effective charm offensive to build a positive image abroad. People-to-people contacts abound, with Chinese students filling universities around the globe. Outbound Chinese tourists now outnumber those from Japan. China’s slogan for dealing with its neighbors is: mulin, anlin, fulin, which translates as: be friendly, make them feel secure and help make them rich. It works. A 2004 BBC poll of 23,000 people in 22 countries showed that 48% considered China a positive global influence--10 points higher than the U.S. Moreover, the survey showed that 58% of the respondents ages 18-to-29 had a positive view of China.
First, we shut up on the hectoring rhetoric.
Second, both sides need statesmen of real stature to manage the relationship. Paulson is McGregor’s choice, and his recent comments in China seem to bode well in that regard: understanding, but reasonably prodding on economics.
A good ending:
It will be easier for Mr. Paulson to influence China than many think. Behind the bluster, the Chinese leadership under President Hu Jintao is uncertain and searching for where to take the country as it becomes an integrated part of the global community for the first time. China doesn’t really know what it wants next. It just knows it doesn’t want to be what it used to be: a feudal country that foreigners could carve up like a ripe melon, eventually becoming a dysfunctional civilization that a messianic leader could bring to the edge of social and economic insanity.That would be Mao.
Great piece. Really brilliant. Some of the best paras on China I’ve ever read. I’ve really got to get this guy’s book finally.
Like me, McGregor worries most about the leadership on both sides right now. He doesn’t speak about the fifth generation of China’s leaders coming online in the next few years, but I suspect he’s far more sanguine about them than the current crew.
As for Bush and Co., his lack of anything nice to say about them speaks volumes, and yet, I give Bush a lot of credit for NOT screwing up China, despite the Lou Dobbs and O’Reillys and Chuck Schumers and Pentagon hawks.
To me, China’s doing just fine, considering the vast and entirely profound social and economic change it’s handling right now--without blowing up.
Must we remain satisfied with the CCP? Yes, for now. And so PNM comes out in China any day now, with the more maximum cuts the censors wanted.
But China remains a country ripe for serious mentoring, the way the Brits shepherded America into the 20th century’s power elite.
What can we expect from China in the meantime? They will seek to set up their economy as much as possible for their own gain, with the CCP cynically manipulating media throughout. We can either play into their propaganda about the U.S., which matches our thinking and actions and intentions far closer than any of our propaganda about China, or we can dilute it through the logical seeking of strategic alliance--now, while the price is relatively cheap.
Do I “sacrifice” Taiwan for that? Hardly. Taiwan’s future is secured by its golden goose status. But neither do I indulge in Taipei’s infantile fantasies about true independence, which to me make about as much sense as Texas’ historical myths.
Abroad, we can expect China to keep a low profile on security, wanting assurances galore before America makes any moves--if we want their help in the matter. Sudan is a good example. China says it wants the UN peacekeepers and then does nothing to make it happen. Meanwhile, Beijing’s senior energy official broaches the concept that China and the U.S. “should jointly develop oil fields to protect against the risks of supply disruptions and the rising costs of production both countries face.”
Put those two actions together, consider Sudan’s oil and China’s current privileged stake there, and then consider Iraq post our invasion, and are you now particularly surprised by China’s two-faced approach on the UN--that paragon of peacekeeping successes in Africa?
So which country needs to grow up more right now WRT the other? Who needs to get some strategic imagination and get off anachronistic definitions of great power competition and threat? Who needs to repair its diplomatic profile in the world? Who needs to get more realistic about the tasks involved with infrastructure development in shrinking the Gap?
A responsible China is a self-interested China right now. Until irresponsible America becomes a self-aware America, that’s the best we can hope for--and the most we deserve.
| Permalink |
Comments (11)
Yes. At the risk of sounding simplistic, I really don't like or understand the need to push people into either the pro- or the anti-China crowd. I like your trying to understand China position.
I also agree that China has come an incredibly long way in a short time and that ought to be acknowledged.
Posted by China Law Blog | September 15, 2006 1:20 AM
Self-interested? But who is willing to serve the needs of the global community in globalisation? Statistics suggest that many governments are unwilling to volunteer their forces for UN approved missions. As of July, out of a total of 63,115 troops on such missions, China's contribution was 1417 and the US contribution 13. National interest trumps globalisation for peacekeeping around the world.
Posted by IJ | September 15, 2006 5:46 AM
It’s not the fall that worries me. It’s the sudden stop at the end.
While American politics did eventually crawl out of a quasi-feudal pit of incestuous corruption, it took a world wide economic disruption and a pair of world wars to yank us out. I am unsure what you are referring to by “irresponsible America”, but you may agree with my observation that the fiscal irresponsibility of current American politics is a leading contender to cause economic disruptions that could lead to a major powers conflict. That, and rising economic inequality both in the US and China.
In addition, the American analogy is perhaps the most optimistic of several examples that would be comparable. Possibly China is more like Austria-Hungry, which was ruled by a corrupt bureaucracy which was headed by an autocrat, practiced political oppression, and which reinforced economic and social class distinctions, all while attempting to drag the peasantry through a period of industrial modernization. Maybe China will violently disintegrate into several states due to internal centrifugal forces and external manipulation. Or perhaps it is more like Russia and will undergo (another) sudden internal violent change and emerge with a chaotic ideologically driven expansionist regime.
Posted by TheJew | September 15, 2006 6:06 AM
Tom,
Perhaps the reason Mr. Bush has not screwed up China:
1. Too busy with pots on the stove boiling over, domestically and internationally.
2. The Chinese, as you observe, hold a lot of US Treasuries and are a big commercial partner.
Very truly yours,
Dave Fischer
Posted by Dave Fischer | September 16, 2006 3:17 AM
I agree with what you have to say about China. But those are exactly the reasons why (as a Taiwanese), I am very wary the prospect of Taiwan being co-opted up by China. We've worked through our growing pains and now have a functional democracy and a free and open society. We may not have China's phenomenal growth rate, but we have reached a generally high level of development that will take them a long time to catch up with. In the time that Taiwan and China has been governed under separate political, the Taiwanese have also developed a unique identity that is separate from that of the mainland. Reunification is an intolerable prospect.
Those of us who want to keep this effective but non-nominal independence have to walk a fine line -- A rash call for immediate independence will obviously draw Beijing's ire, perhaps to the point where force is deployed, something both sides want to avoid. However, getting to cozy with the Chinese government also brings a risk of forfeiting our future effective independence.
Posted by Battlepanda | September 17, 2006 10:23 AM
Battlepanda,
(great 1. name, and 2. logo on your website, btw)
how would you compare such a prospect with China's assumption of responsibility for Hong Kong? i do not know, so this is neither rhetorical nor snarky. my impression, however, is that things have not gone to hell in Hong Kong...
so, a ways down the road, say 20 years, things could be a lot different.
like Tom often says, (not in so many words), the Taiwanese want to profit and the Mainlanders want access to capital. those continuing desires could do much to bring the two closer together in the next 10, 20, 30 years...
Posted by Sean | September 17, 2006 11:07 AM
Sean,
Hong Kong has something of a stay, unless I'm mistaken. The chinese signed an agreement that they will be allowed to keep their way of life for 50 years after the handover. 50 years sounds like a long time, but the erosion process has already begun. I don't keep track of HK news well, but I believe there have been instances where the Hong Kong people believed their rights to be compromised by Beijing, resulting in mass protests. Of course, that mass protests were allowed at all in HK can be seen as an encouraging sign. The question is, for how much longer will they be tolerated?
I don't want that kind of life for the Taiwanese. Freedom of speech and some say over what government you're ruled by ever few years is a right that's awfully easy to get used to.
It also seems to me that Tom is flawed in his comparison of China and America (even as I admire the analogy in other ways). America was a democracy from the first and no party ever presumed to rule forever there the way the CCP has in China. It seems that you have assumed that just as the CCP have opened up economically, it will continue upon this trajectory and open up politically too as soon as it is feasible. I don't see why this would necessarily be the case. Tom is right in that the turbulant period in American history he mentioned contains plenty of corruption. But democracy was never suspended. We are dealing with a different political paradigm here, so it is not a given that what happened with the one country will happen in another.
The "inevitable" liberalization of China is certainly not enough of a done deal that I will want to bet the Taiwanese future on it.
I am all for trade liberalization between Taiwan and China. That's a win-win situation. But the closer trade links makes it even more vital that the Taiwanese consciously draws a line in the sand politically between us and China if we want to keep the progress we've made. There's no good reason why China and Taiwan should merge in the future even if China does liberalize -- Taiwan has been a separate entity from China for so long. Even before WWII it was a Japanese colony. Germany and Austria are both liberal countries sharing the same language, racial makeup and culture. Nobody is saying that it is inevitable that they merge.
Posted by Battlepanda | September 17, 2006 2:26 PM
China often seems to have a chip on its shoulder in a way that is unpleasantly reminiscent of Wilhemine Germany. The insistence on eventual assimilation of Taiwan seems to be part of this attitude.
Hopefully, China will devote its energies towards the more productive task of assimilating Qinghai and Xinjiang over the next decade or so. With luck, as the Chinese feel less need to demand respect from the world because they receive the respect due to a country of their size and power, perhaps they will care less about Taiwan.
Posted by Mark in Texas | September 17, 2006 11:56 PM
Things between the United States and China have become a lot nicer once it became clear what China really wants. The reason China insists that Taiwan is part of China is largely the same reason that people are insistant that Kurdistan try to stay part of Iraq.
Once China says that Taiwan is independent, then everything else goes. A pretty good statement on China's attitude toward Taiwan was given by of all people William Tecumseh Sherman.... Just substitute Mexico with Russia or Iraq.
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/sherman-to-burn-atlanta.html
The good news is that the instance is just that Taiwan is part of China. There is no instance that China be ruled from Beijing.
The definition of China is something that Beijing doesn't care very much about. If Taiwan insists that China means the Republic of China with its capital in Taipei, that's perfectly something Beijing can live with, and Beijing certainly has no interest in directly ruling Taiwan.
It's very likely that the next government on Taiwan will agree to "one China, different interpretations."
What's happened is that over the last few years, it became obvious that what Beijing wanted (Taiwan part of China in name, spend the next 100 years discussing details), was far more in US interests than what Taipei wanted (a crisis by 2008 in which the United States would support Taipei and get Beijing to back down).
Posted by Joseph Wang | September 21, 2006 12:21 PM
Actually, the United States wasn't founded as a democracy. If you look at the original Constitution only white males with property had any vote, and pretty much everyone was indirectly elected. It wasn't untilthe 1820's and Andrew Jackson that the United States became democratic.
My own view is that China should take the road of successful democracies like the United States, Britain, and for that matter Taiwan. Start with building institutions and rule of law, then once those are in place, you make the political process more open (and it won't be a top-down process).
Having a popular revolution and then hoping that the new guys will be nice people, almost never works. The problem is that popular revolutions tend to destroy institutions and rule of law (the U.S. Revolution was a big exception), leaving with you a big mess the day after.
This has implications for US foreign policy. The Bush administration strategy was to make Iraq and Afghanistan a showcase for how wonderful democracy is, and it's having the exact opposite effect.
Posted by Joseph Wang | September 21, 2006 12:34 PM
Joseph,
You're confusing two separate issues. There was racism and sexism and bias against those who didn't owe properties in early America that kept large swarths of the population from exercising their votes, but the democratic system was still in place -- It was possible for the government to be removed through elections. After all, Ancient Greece is a democracy, and by no means did everybody get to vote. This was never in doubt from the very beginning in the United States. The circle of voters deemed acceptable were gradually widened until now, when all adults have sufferage.
China is not on this path. I don't see the CCP ever willingly stepping down because it is the will of the people.
Posted by Battlepanda | September 30, 2006 11:44 AM