Many Western observers of China are familiar — perhaps too familiar — with China and the Chinese regularly complaining about foreigners meddling in its internal affairs. It was brought out for 2008′s Lhasa, Tibet riots as well as 2009′s Urumqi, Xinjiang riots, amongst a litany of other matters both large and small throughout history. It gets brought up as the standard, even obligatory, CCP government response whenever negative foreign opinion about something in or relating to China gets too loud. It’s China’s way of saying “shut up and mind your own business.”
Thanks to Richard Burger of The Peking Duck (still blocked in China), I just read Joshua Kurlantzick’s recently published “Nonstop party: The surprising persistence of Chinese communism” on The Boston Globe. It’s a lengthy article telling Americans how China and its government has thus far managed to defy the expectations and predictions of American leaders and China-watchers, by simply not imploding and still be around…arguably stronger than ever.
For example, China’s economic rise has led to the growth of a Chinese middle class, but this middle class that many Americans imagined would gradually hanker for greater political freedoms to complement their growing economic freedom has instead largely stood behind the CCP authoritarian government. Why? Because they see the Party as both the entity that gave them their economic prosperity and their best bet for safeguarding those economic gains.
Kurlantzick outlines how China has seemingly successfully managed — even co-opted — the effects of other things such as global integration, ethnic minorities, and increasing technology (in both information and communications), “forcing the world to re-evaluate the stability of authoritarian regimes”, forcing Western countries to realize that countries can “survive” (what about “thrive”?) without making a transition to democracy as they get richer.
Then, after noting (or threatening) that many countries are eying and trying to emulate this new, apparently feasible, and so-called “China model”, Kurlantzick reminds us that this model “contains some serious flaws,” or rather persistent problems: growing income disparity and wealth gap, disaffected rural masses despite economically bullish urbanites, increasingly violent mass incidents, the double-edged volatility of nationalism, and the friction between economic control and economic growth. He’s fair, however, by acknowledging that China “appears to understand its own weaknesses and is prepared to combat them”, trying to direct investment towards those being left behind and reining in excessive, counter-productive nationalism.
All of this is more or less matter-of-fact. I may not necessarily agree with the degree to which Kurlantzick attributes or frames certain things to CCP machinations and control, but overall, he’s offering a lot of clarity on a very complex but immensely important to understand conclusion that The Peking Duck summarizes as: “China is not about to collapse, democracy is not arriving in the forseeable future, censorship will continue, the CCP isn’t going away and it may still be in power generations from now.”
But then Kurlantzick offers some political advice and guidance on how America can mind China’s business:
An effective American China policy, then, should balance greater acceptance of Beijing’s rising power with a demonstration that, despite China’s rising influence, the US is not going to back off core beliefs, such as human rights advocacy. Washington also must recognize that trade and investment alone will not open up Chinese politics; the US could focus on areas where Beijing, though increasingly sure of itself, remains weak – such as providing technology for Chinese bloggers to get around Internet filters, or highlighting the vast problems of rural Chinese society (both Voice of America and Radio Free Asia have extensive Chinese broadcasts which penetrate rural China).
Washington has walked this line before. In a previous era when many academics believed the Soviet regime would last for decades, American administrations both dealt with Moscow on issues like arms control and pressured it on human rights. And the Soviet Union, perhaps like China today, had internal fissures whose extent went unappreciated. Ultimately, the USSR’s weaknesses overwhelmed it.
Emphases mine. Make no mistake, I’m personally all for freedom of information and society being aware of its problems, but this is, without a doubt, interfering with another country’s internal affairs. These are premeditated and coordinated efforts to influence and affect what goes on in another sovereign nation’s society, with its people, involving its politics.
And I say, “so what?”
Nations have been doing this to each other ever since ideology has existed as a concept. There’s no big surprise that we seek to influence each other both on an individual level and in aggregate as families, towns, cities, states, countries, and geo-political spheres. It’s just the way we function as a species in a shared, now global, society. Ideas and the will to use ideas cannot always be stopped by arbitrary and artificial lines drawn with blood, nationality, or race. We are organisms that seek to control our existence by controlling our environment, and whatever shares that environment with us.
China and the United States, Chinese and American, authoritarian and democratic, nationalism and patriotic dissent, oppression and freedom…these all coexist in a shared environment.
So when China and Chinese complain that Americans (and/or Westerners) are once again trying to subvert their sovereignty or sow discord, they’re not always wrong. We can argue about specific instances and degree, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking they’re spouting nonsense. It’s true.
Likewise, when America and Americans complain that China and the Chinese are exporting their propaganda and censorship overseas, they’re not necessarily wrong either. Again, we can argue about specific accusations and extent, but let’s not pretend China doesn’t have interests it wants to protect or project.
It’s only fair.
Great post. I agree (mostly) with Kurlantzick’s assessment and I agree with you on how we can and should “interfere” via the net and via pushing out the truth.
who is giving you this right!? this is typical strong guys logic. hey guys, imaging one day when China is strong enough to interfere western countries’ afairs. hou about we discut slavery of last centuris and invation of western countries on china of 1800. are you feeling happy and thanksful?
“pushing out the truth”
Who’s truth? Truth like WMD in Iraq truth? Have your American compatriots even figured out the truth about that yet?
I found the Kurlantzick article frustrating.
I read from the top and agreed with much until I came down to the last three paragraphs. These are proposals for action.
The third last paragraph talks about possible discussions about liberalization as highlighted by Charter 08. I have not discerned any impact from Charter 08, and I don’t see that as a change factor.
The second last paragraph has: “providing technology for Chinese bloggers to get around Internet filters, or highlighting the vast problems of rural Chinese society (both Voice of America and Radio Free Asia have extensive Chinese broadcasts which penetrate rural China).”
Well, I view that the Internet censorship issue is not about filtering of foreign websites. Chinese Internet users can climb over the GFW if they really need to. The bigger and more insidious problem is the self-censorship at the BBS forums and blog service providers. Chinese netizens write something and it gets deleted with no recourse. There isn’t a thing that American-made anti-filtering technology can do about this.
In addition, I don’t believe that RFA/VOA has any material impact inside China. Besides, everybody knows that there are many problems in rural China. But do you have a better solution and, most importantly, one that will convince people that it is guaranteed to work?
The last paragraph talks about how the internal fissures in Soviet Union ripped it apart. Then it says ‘perhaps’ China also has internal fissures too. Well, ‘perhaps’ China doesn’t have those kinds of internal fissures. Then what?
But I don’t have sure bets either.
“Proposals for action.” Bingo. Exactly. I didn’t like Kurlantzick’s ending either. Agreed with everything else you said.
Those interested in better understanding the problem of self-censorship in China can check out, for example, Rebecca MacKinnon’s RConversation.
“…when America and Americans complain that China and the Chinese are exporting their propaganda and censorship overseas, they’re not necessarily wrong either.”
A good read and it works both ways for sure.
My only gripe is this: why the need for ‘necessarily’ at the end there? There’s no place for equivocation on the point of China’s interference in others’ affairs either.
“but let’s not pretend China doesn’t have interests it wants to protect or project.”
Only an idiot would do so.
“It’s only fair.”
That rather depends on the methods chosen to protect their interests, doesn’t it?
stuart,
The “necessarily” there is a mirror to the “always” in the previous paragraph. It’s there to complement the idea that the overall point is true, even if specific accusations or instances can be debated.
I feel a lot of people make too many statements that show they do NOT understand that other nations do things to protect or project their interests.
As for the “fairness” of methods, that’s all subjective, isn’t it? Who’s to determine what is fair and what isn’t in this world? This goes back to the “it works both ways” point. In the end, both sides can easily complain of the “fairness” of the other side’s methods, but more often than not, I see both sides hypocritically engaging in equally “unfair” methods.
“As for the “fairness” of methods, that’s all subjective, isn’t it? Who’s to determine what is fair and what isn’t in this world?”
I concede the problems inherent in both questions. But I do think there are moral absolutes; and both the US and China cross that line from time to time.
Yes, yes, I know – where, who, how etc. to draw the line.
While I agree with Kai that it can be subjective, especially in a tit-for-that, no higher law world, I also agree with Stuart that there are and should be moral absolutes and ways of enforcing them.
Fortunately, we have such a vision and potential framework in place if we got around to building support for it (or for its reform), committing to it, and allowing supranational but fully representative institutions to enforce it: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/ and http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (though the subsequent international covenants, while praiseworthy, allowed all kinds of “reservations” to be stated). Note that of all 147 initial U.N. members at the time of the signing of the UDHR, there was not a single dissenting vote, giving it added moral weight.
Even the world’s supposedly irreconcilable religions have agreed on a global ethic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towards_a_Global_Ethic:_An_Initial_Declaration
There can and have been ways to envision and agree on universals across cultures, but the question is more about enforcement and the psychological and institutional changes needed to get us to a point where the public is sufficiently willing to cede this autonomy to an international decision-making body.
the key, is the development of ecnomy.
Imagine you are living in the Wild West (of 19th century America, that is). A neighbor in town is beating his wife. Since there is little legal oversight (even if there is a sheriff, maybe he won’t get involved, etc.), you decide to bust open his doors and free the lady. Many people will call you a hero, and no one will object to your having a weapon in such a dangerous environment (they will think you odd if you don’t). Similarly, you might have a gun fight if the neighbor secretly tries extending his fence into your area, steals your cattle, etc., and people will just expect it, even if a few may shake their heads at the violence.
Now, imagine you are living in the West (of 21st century America). A neighbor is beating his wife and you decide to bust open his doors and free the lady. Many people will call you a vigilante and suspect you of having some ax to grind with the guy or having had an affair with his wife. If you hold weapons in your home (esp. a large number) even without making an attack, neighbors will be suspicious or uncomfortable and call for (preemptive) action to be taken against you (i.e., for you to be arrested on weapons charges). This is because they have greater trust in the police as a more disinterested party who are controlled by people they elect and who are also overseen by independent judges appointed by people they elect. Zoning disputes are also entrusted to be adjudicated by the authorities where necessary.
Applying this to global policing and law, and we are still far closer to the first case, though its inadequacies (of scores being settled unilaterally, bilaterally, or secretly and with negative consequences and a lack of trust, of justice being capricious or at best inconsistent, of collateral damage being high, etc.) are becoming apparent to those who believe in universal principles of justice and higher law.
But until steps are made to facilitate the transition to the more progressive second example, it won’t be such a surprise to see secretive, “law in your own hands” actions taken by vested-interest parties. Of course, there will still be corruption and attempts to manipulate the law or its enforcement, but it will be held more in check under the auspices of strong but independent branches of a federated world government.
Does Illinois still try to get its interests represented in the national stage, even with pork-barrel projects? Yes, as with other states. (Would the U.S. or China still try to represent their interests in a federated world government? Yes.) Does it get into an armed conflict with Indiana, or try to violently install its own leaders there, if there is a disagreement. Thankfully, no.
Since human nature proves it can overcome, there is therefore absolutely no reason to believe such clandestine or aggressive actions are indefinitely inevitable between nations, even if, due to the lack of adequate supra-national legal structures and enforcement (as in our earlier national histories), subterfuge, if not conflict, will lamentably be inevitable until steps are taken to put them in place.
One more rhetorical question I’d like to add is: “Does belonging to a national government preclude Illinois from its representatives being potentially prosecuted for corruption or abuse of power?” No, nor would a federated world government prevent intervention in states’ affairs. The willingness and capacity to intervene internationally would undermine the idealistic justifications of nations getting involved to interfere abroad, just as the capacity of a federal government intervening in state’s affairs obviate the need for bilateral state conflicts.
But the key reasons why the majority of Illinoisans wouldn’t rage on (as would present-day U.S. or Chinese citizens) about the national government intervening in their sovereignty if their leaders were indicted is because Illinoisans 1) also view themselves as U.S. citizens (more than, as much as, or at least close to how they view themselves as Illinoisans), and 2) They voluntarily elected to cede some sovereignty (but not all) to the national authority in joining the strong if federated Union, believing it capable of representing their interests (more than going at it alone would), and trusting it to handle abuses even done by one of their “own”.
Obviously many changes, both psychological and structural, are needed to get to the point where U.S. and Chinese citizens can feel that way about the United Nations, but it is not only possible we will get to such a point, but, as our history toward progressively higher levels of organization demonstrates, inevitable. The question is how long and tortuous we allow the process to be.
i don’t read this blog very often, but politics, no matter from single person、”parties” or even “civilized western”. its always shit! you guys own destiny are trying to put some [expletive deleted] on whatever china happens/ i know ! exactely China has so much [expletive deleted] and bads. but you are not going to change this, on the contrary, how about china breaks down and we watch and wait for you guys to serve us from hungry and utterly destitude? you are not even kind animals, this blog is only about complaining and discrimination.
Well done. 2 comments! Now you can collect your 10 mao for the day.
Yup, anybody who doesn’t flagellate themselves and curse the CCP every moment of their lives while glorifying 白人民 主 is clearly a 50cent-er, because we all know that Beijing gives two shits about English language blogs, right? Moron.
lol, 白人民主
And yet you’re the one calling people a moron.
I have just finished writing my term paper on US’s position in the question of Taiwan.
To me, it’s mostly because Washington doesn’t want to lose any influence in the Pacific. At one point though, the West will have to realize that China will grow in power no matter what, and that there is no much to fear. The balance of power shifts one in a while… that’s the way it is.
Interesting article Kai, as always.
I think most Chinese does not have a problem with the message but with the messenger.
America’s moral authority is obscured by its struggles to find a balance between of enlightened ideals formulated by its founders, and the realpolitik practice by its leaders. United States champions peace and order in the world while being its biggest arms dealer, it calls for global free trade while heavily subsidize its exporters. The face of America’s economic dominance is not the prosperity its average joes but the corporate imperialism of its elites; its technological ingenuity is exemplified not by life saving research but rather smart bombs and predator drones. Is it any wonder most Chinese citizens view calls for political reform as anything but P.R. bombs lobbed from moral high ground?
While China’s future leader may be inspired by the ideals of western democracy, they will not be dictated into doing so by foreign “interference”; nor will they be blind to the the limits of democratic ideals in the real world. The Iraq invasion should be a clear slap in the face to anyone who still holds naive assumptions about America’s willingness to employ
military forceswell intentioned interference tosecure its energy needsbring freedom and democracy to people everywhere,Let’s not kid ourselves folks… all of the major powers over the centuries has wielded hard and soft power for the influence of other powers – as any good nation/state does to maintain the flow of imports/exports. The real question that if coming up for P.R. China, along with many other nations, as the 21st Century reaches it’s first decade – is how to crack the “content barrier” that seems to be holding a great deal of cultures back in the mediums of radio, television, and the Internet.
Let’s face it – when it comes down to “box-office numbers” when has another country other than the U.S. has secured the top 10 at the end of the year for tickets sold?