For those of us involved in the development of new internet media and technology, there is almost a faith-based view that what we are doing has an inexorable, positive force toward ushering in the world we want to live in. However, in the area of US-China relations, the growth of unmediated internet contact between China and West has not led to greater mutual understanding, and has largely exposed great rifts between “Them” and “Us.” In a speech at the TedX Honolulu and Rethink:Hawaii conference, Kaiser Kuo highlighted the fact that online contact has been a centripetal force in US-China relations at the people to people level, pulling us further apart, or at least reinforcing our existing misconceptions of each other.
I’ll first summarize Kaiser’s comments, and then share my own reactions and feelings below. I do want to quickly say that this centripetal force of the Internet is the opposite of what I had in mind when I started CNReviews in 2007. I expected that smart use of internet media, even on a small niche blog like CNReviews, could create awareness and attention far greater than any person-to-person effort. But the seeds planted by online outlets like Danwei, ESWN, Global Voices Online, Shanghaiist, even chinaSMACK, have not resulted in a great harvest of ongoing interest and understanding in China among Western readers, and instead remain a relatively small niche community serving Chinese expats and those with pre-existing interest in China. And yes, the comment threads are indeed full of unthinking China-bashers, unthinking China defenders, self-important egomaniacs, and even sock puppets (and the China “experts” that hold them).
Meanwhile, in the real world, we continue to live apart (in geography and in mindset) as the dynamics of global capitalism increasingly tie us together.
Introduction: Kaiser Kuo
Kaiser Kuo (Twitter) moved to China in 1996 and is a rock musician in a band Chunqiu, writer, journalist, and speaker. He most recently served as director of digital strategy for Ogilvy Digital China, where he wrote at the (now defunct) blog Ogilvy China Digital Watch. In my opinion, he is one of the most articulate thinkers and writers about how internet and technology is shaping the most important bilateral relationship in the world today: US-China.
Will online relationships boil down to Red Guards vs. Rednecks?
Kaiser spoke on the growing awareness of the chasm between Chinese and Westerners thanks to increasing interconnectedness on the internet. He gave a longer speech (video, 78 min) at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, entitled “Shouting across the Chasm.” His TedX speech was a shorter version but sounded the same themes (I will link to it when it is available). Bob Page, at The Mercury Brief, did an exceptional job summarizing the speech. The post, and the speech was picked up by numerous esteemed China blogs including China Herald, Useless Tree, China Digital Times, ChinaGeeks, Danwei, and Peking Duck. Plenty of discussions have happened already around this speech.
Earthquakes happen when pressure builds up under the surface
By and large, US-China relations at a government to government level have been as healthy as it ever has been. Last summer, during the Beijing Olympics, I recall watching George W. Bush enjoying the autumn days of his Presidency watching the US Women’s Volleyball team and thinking that China was one of the one bright spots of the presidency of George the Younger. I (who never had a good thing to say about George W) even stuck my neck out and wrote about George Bush’s Uncharacteristically Nuanced Approach toward US-China Relations. With Obama’s arrival 11/16 in Shanghai on his first trip to China as President (see itinerary on ForeignPolicy.com), a fairly functional relationship exists between governments.
But under the surface, according to Kaiser, at a people-to-people level, “a real crisis exists, and relations between Chinese and Anglophone Westerners are at a real low.” To use the analogy of an earthquake, the surface looks calm, but the invisible shifting of the techtonic plates.
In the past, contact between Chinese and Americans “took place at small scale and with intermediation” often in “painfully polite settings.” Bob Page summarized Kaiser’s contrast of the past with the present in his blog post:
“For most of the 30 years since China’s reforms began, Chinese and American civilians rarely met face-to-face in significant numbers,” Kuo says. “When encounters did take place, they were typically stage-managed events among civil, often painfully polite participants in sister city arrangements, trade delegations and cultural exchanges.
“In March 2008, in the run-up to the Olympic Games, Chinese people were curious about what the world would say about them…. But they were blindsided by negative English-language reporting. While hundreds of millions of Chinese had risen out of poverty, while the Chinese economy had grown by 10 percent annually for nearly three continuous decades, while China’s biggest cities had become forests of skyscrapers with vibrant cultural scenes, none of this was deemed newsworthy by Western news media….
“Instead, Chinese and Americans went after each other in the comment sections of news stories, blog posts, YouTube, forums and boards in an escalating people-to-people brawl that continues to this day. They fight over a litany of issues: Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen, trade, Internet censorship, religious freedom, Myanmar, Darfur, sanctions on Iran, carbon emissions, and so on. The first real people-to-people encounter between the world’s reigning and rising superpowers did not bode well.
What changed? In short, English literacy in China, and the internet. “What has happened since is two things. One, has been the ubiquity of English language education in secondary schools in China, and the other thing that has happened is the stupendous rise of the Internet.” said Kaiser. “In 1999, there were only 8 mm people on the Internet. Fast forward to today, we have 338 mm Internet users (in China) and in the course of 10 years, have achieved 94% penetration of broadband….this has made it possible for unmediated, large scale interaction with Westerners and Chinese.”
In this new media landscape, government-to-government relations are on the surface, while a hot, turbulent sub-surface of popular opinion continues a hidden techtonic shift. What if a crisis were to happen? How could popular opinion shape and limit government’s response?
Welcome to the Internet: where your one-sided beliefs are reinforced by others just like you
Even within the West, with its tradition of free press and free speech, we see how the Internet has caused us to self-segregate into communities of similar interest and political leaning. From Bob Page’s post:
But this is the Internet we’re talking about, which many of us believed would bring down barriers and usher in the death of distance, the good times of a global village. Instead, it has made us more fractured and tribal…. It’s also true within America, where nowadays you only read the political blogs and viewpoints of those who happen to be on your side of the political aisle.
We read what we want to read, according to Kaiser. Those on the left read Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo, and those on the right read “whatever wacko right wing website they read.” (Its clear where Kaiser falls on the ideological divide). The “kumbaya” factor of the Internet is, in fact, more dead than alive.
In China, the internet “has historically been dismissed as greasy kids stuff” (e.g. internet games, internet cafes, entertainment) but is “also the emerging public sphere in Chinese life. China has never had a public sphere for intellectuals to gather and discuss the issues of the day,” according to Kaiser. As a result, the internet in China is extremely important for shaping popular opinion. But the internet in China is no more enlightened than in the US. In fact, at Chinese Blogger Conference 2008, Chinese blogger Ping Ke (平客 aka buchimifan) spoke on the need for greater rational online debate within the Chinese blogosphere. And Roland Soong, in a speech prepared for Chinese Blogger Conference 2009 (see 1kg CNBloggerCon minisite and summary of event on GlobalTimes) and Blogfest Asia, shared the reasons why he doesn’t allow comments on the EastSouthWestNorth translation portal that he runs. An excerpt:
I do not think it helps for me to facilitate this kind of exchange between “Red Guards versus Rednecks” (or “Chinese Fenqing (angry youth) PK Foreign Fenqing (angry youth)”). I may want to communicate some information to people, but I am likely to encounter the kind of situation as described by Leung Man-tao (梁文道) in Southern Weekend:
在一篇一萬字的文章裏看見一句令我不滿的話，忘記剩下那部分吧，我要寫一篇兩萬字的回應來批判它。我為什麼要耐著性子看完 那篇東西呢？我為什麼要深入甚至同情地理會它的真正含義呢？它只不過是我用來表達自己的機會和藉口罷了。
In a 10,000 word essay, I came across one sentence that displeased me. I forgot about the rest of that essay and I wrote a 20,000 word essay to criticize it. Why should I bother to read the whole essay? Why should I bother to delve into it or try to comprehend its true meaning? It is merely an excuse and opportunity for me to express myself.
Indeed, I have come across someone who wrote: “I am not interested in the facts about what happened in Tibet, because I already know how to define the event.” What is the point for providing information to people like that? They are not interested in any information. My own utility to them would be to provide the excuse and/or platform to rave and rant about their pre-established and immovable positions.
Spiraling toward bipolar disorder? Toward a more resilient system of US-China relations
Unfortunately, the diagnosis of our condition is more painfully clear than the remedy. Kaiser, blogger Roland Soong, journalist/professor Rebecca McKinnon and blogger Aimee Barnes have each shared some thoughts on how we can prevent the downward spiral that we won’t even recognize until something goes wrong. I’ll caveat this by saying that these suggestions are in English for the English speaking audience. Of course, there is just as much work to be done on the Chinese side, and supporting those who can influence Chinese opinion in a positive way is just as much part of the prescription of success. It is very much a two-way relationship. Here are Kaiser’s recommendations:
- Cultivate personal knowledge – From Roland Soong’s post: “Knowledge is the first step. You can[not] talk about something unless you are knowledgeable about it. Why do you want to talk about that something? Because you think that the knowledge has changed your position. And that knowledge may also change your readers, especially those who form the subject of the discussion.” Blogs are a great place to start. For English-language readers, Kaiser mentioned several sources including Alltop China, CN Reviews, ChinaGeeks, Danwei (Danwei China mirror site) and ESWN. CNReviews had highlighted blogs that translate Chinese netizen comments and other blogs to watch in 2009.
- Understand Chinese History – Accept the need to understand Chinese history. Chinese current events are framed by a view of history held by elites. Understand that view as best you can. According to Kaiser, a place to start would be The Search for Modern China by Jonathan Spence.
- Learn what Chinese people actually think when their defenses are down. The conversations taking place when it’s not believed ‘whitey’ is around are decidedly more nuanced. Blogs that translate Chinese content (listed above) can be a starting point.
Rebecca MacKinnon wrote an open letter to Barack Obama advocating a people-to-people approach toward building relationships between Americans and Chinese. I posted on an Aug 2009 conversation I had with Rebecca and excerpted from the original letter:
Just as you have used new technology to engage with the American electorate, your China policy can be greatly strengthened if you conduct a real conversation with the Chinese people. Listen as much as you talk; provide a much-needed platform for open discussion. The U.S. embassy in Beijing should build a Chinese-language website modeled after change.gov, focused not just on U.S.-China relations, but on the range of concerns and interests – from environment, to food safety, to factory safety standards, to education and real estate law — shared by ordinary Chinese and Americans. Some linguistically talented State Department employees should start blogging in Chinese. Open up the comments sections, see how the Chinese blogosphere responds, then respond to them in turn. Translate some of the Chinese conversation into English for Americans to read and react, then translate it back.
Perhaps the idea of open comments will just draw out “those shouting loudest on both sides…Red Guards and rednecks,” as Kaiser Kuo characterizes the internet. I believe that more person-to-person efforts are complementary to and more important than an online approach. This could potentially involve study abroad, educational tourism, volunteer tourism, sponsored events, cross-border events, and informal delegations. The goal of online efforts should be to convert online connections into in-person connections, and take it out of the blogosphere and into the realm of real-world discussions.
Aimee Barnes comes up with a 5 point approach:
- Including youth leaders and business influencers into the dialogue now hosted by academic and governmental elites
- More support for business leaders in both countries to build bilateral relationships
- More study of Mandarin among US kids and adults
- Deeper understanding of China’s history and government among Western media
- New “equal access” research institutions/think tanks that include more Chinese-born specialists
In my opinion, based on 2 years of following English-language Chinese blogs, mainstream media, and actively blogging on CN Reviews, I am more and more convinced that actual person-to-person contact, as opposed to online blogging and conversation, is the most important ingredient to building trust, relationships and increased understanding and mutual respect. I suppose many of you would say “Duh, of course.” But if we believe that the internet can be a force for evil (or divisiveness) we must also conclude that it can be a force for good (or improved mutual understanding). In any case, the “genie can’t be put back in the box” and online discourse will continue on both sides of the Pacific. But energy should be placed toward efforts that bring together business leaders and non-governmental leaders on issues that we both care about, and rely on material self interest as a mechanism for building bridges. And a much heavier investment in person-to-person connections between leaders in all fields in China and US is necessary and cannot be replaced by the online discourse dominated by trolls, fenqing, panda-huggers, panda-bashers, Red Guards, and rednecks. In the meantime, your free speech is not guaranteed on the Internet, at least not on our blog. You can go create your own blog if I don’t like what you have to say!
From written content, to community organizing
For people like Kaiser and Rebecca MacKinnon who are working on writing books, I feel a key metric of success is not just the number of books sold and the number of online references, but the number of influential people on both sides that engage in a deeper and more informed dialogue with the other side as a result of the book. It is an exercise in community building and community organizing, rather than just the act of authorship. The pen is mightier than the sword, but only in combination with eye-to-eye contact (or at least numerous meals and drinking together), and trust built over time.
Business partners, motivated by self-interest properly understood
In an article entitled “New Friction and Vast Agenda Awaits Obama on China Trip” in the Wall Street Journal, Ian Johnson highlights that the issues that require US-China coordination have exploded:
A decade ago, most issues discussed at China-U.S. summits were limited to three issues: human rights, nuclear nonproliferation and trade. Now, the list of topics has grown to include almost every problem facing the world, from clean energy and the war in Afghanistan to African development and fixing the world economy — all of which are expected to have a place in talks between Mr. Obama and his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao.
“For the first time in the history of our relationship, global issues are at the top of the agenda,” says Kenneth Lieberthal, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who was a special assistant on Asian affairs to former President Bill Clinton. “This is new territory for us.”
It is a change that analysts on both sides see as potentially problematic. Chinese officials and analysts note that the U.S. still has an arms and high-tech embargo on China — hardly something one does with a true partner, they say. “Obama wants us to become strategic partners or friends but we aren’t either of those,” says Yan Xuetong, a professor of international relations at Tsinghua University. “We are business partners who share material interests rather than common values.”
It is this last comment from Yan Xuetong that gives me hope and concern. We indeed have significant material interests, from energy, environment, the monetary system…so lets start there. With self-interest properly understood, we can build a more resilient global system between the US and China.
Lest you think that Kaiser is too distraught about our future, he claims to be optimistic about our future, and we recently had a great time on Oahu. Here’s a picture:
I’m interested in your comments. Even if you are a Red Guard or a Redneck!
Are forum comments really so important? I doubt any sort of “understanding” will help when you realize the people posting inflammatory comments are like, 15 years old. There’s only one cure for that: time.
@Daesong,
Valid point. Maybe online comments don’t matter because everyone discounts them as being adolescent, angry youth. The point is that people are looking for validation for their preexisting views. Most people don’t really want to think hard about what other people are saying and don’t want to evaluate if their own long-held views are wrong. I’m sure the Chinese blogosphere is just as diverse, with hard-core patriotic writers one the one side, and more moderate, internationalist voices on the other side. Readers and commenters probably gravitate toward the writers that already support their existing point of view.
Even more concerning if it is 15 year olds that are cultivating lifelong habits of hatred and prejudice.
It’s an interdependent world we live in and the sooner main stream media starts pushing that message the quicker centripetal forces will dissipate.
It is truly fascinating how culture influences dialogue. It has obviously always been the case, especially when countries did confront their points of view on the political stage.
It boils down to the definition of what makes one State a Nation. The course of History has helped define boundaries of both state-building and its definition, permeating in the very core of its citizens.
The echo chamber that the internet is, both liberating and raw, renders the issue more acute, more present in the minds of one and everyone. That might sound scary to some, but is truly extraordinary in the sheer force it brings with it.
As you know, I specialize in Japan, I was therefore fascinated by Kaiser’s view during [Re]Think and TEDx Honolulu, moreso with the depth of details you’re adding here. Thanks Elliott for this amazing piece.
Great post Elliot. I hadn’t seen the other sites cover this so I’m glad that I was able to print your article out and take the time to read it.
Couple questions:
When talking about Red Necks and Red Guards… I am assuming, being from America myself, that Red Necks refers to the unabashed, nationalistic, somewhat embarrassing, LOUD, Obnoxious, problem solving, Americocentric, politically incorrect, conservative American. Is that about right?
And the Red Guard is referring to the unabashed, nationalistic, somewhat embarrassing, LOUD, OBNOXIOUS, quoting from Mao, politically extinct, Sinocentric, conservative Chinese. Is that about right?
Another question is, What would a Red Neck and a Red Guard ever agree on? Terrorism? Defending their country? Kissing in a public park in Nanjing?
Rednecks – here’s the definition of redneck on Wikipedia.
Red Guard – I think this refers to either the “fenqing” (angry youth) or the unreflective China lovers who defend every imagined slight to China’s honor. :)
I think the point is to not empower the extremists, because they will never agree to anything. Empower people who are open minded and willing to have a dialogue.
“I think the point is to not empower the extremists, because they will never agree to anything. Empower people who are open minded and willing to have a dialogue.”
Absolutely. And that desired state can only arise out of a more independent, tolerant, open, and less ethnocentric education and media. On these points it is easy to understand why ‘fenqing’ are a more enduring and prevalent phenomenon than their ‘redneck’ counterparts.
Stuart, look in the effing mirror. You are the extremist.
Do you still get paid for producing two lamentable microsentences? Good luck if you do, old sport; you’ve really got the system beat.
where I come from, the term “redneck” is a racial one, not at all as politically derived as “red guards”. It’d be like saying the “n” word vs. red guards if referring to China/Zimbabwe netizen encounters.
Zuo Ai,
It is a derogatory term and not one I would generally use. It does generally refer to Caucasian people (poor, rural, uneducated people of Latino or African-American ethnic background are generally not called rednecks, there are other derogatory terms people use for those groups!). Kaiser just liked the alliteration for drawing attention and I liked it too.
I don’t. It sucks. Rednecks is a neat term that lets liberal douchebags like Stuart off the hook. I happen to respect “Rednecks” who mind their own damn business a lot than your usual coffee sipping sandal wearing liberal Free-Tibet faggot.
The use of “Red Guards” also bugs me because it implies that those who staunchly contradict Chinabashers are somehow defending Maoism. Modern China isn’t Maoist, and Chinese nationalism isn’t Maoist.
“…and Chinese nationalism isn’t Maoist.”
I agree; it’s far more insidious and threatening. Am I ‘off the hook’ now?
On Australian TV, Kaiser described Rednecks as “racist” and Red Guards as “nationalistic”. Double standards like that don’t help.
I am a tad disappointed that when discussing this topic of relations – the efforts of folks like the China Daily with their BBS forums is not included. True, there are questions about how P.R. Chinese government owned and/or regulated operations, in terms of credibility of the “independent” participants and what topics are or not taboo from day to day – but is still a viable conduit for P.R. Chinese, “laowai” expats, and those overseas to converse and debate. Let’s face it – a good deal of those websites discussed in this article may not be available for all P.R. Chinese to access – while the China Daily BBS is.
Matt “Uncle Laowai” Sawtell – ‘Forumite’ of the China Daily BBS since 2007
Matthew,
Thanks for your comment. Honestly I can’t say I’ve spent any time on the China Daily BBS. What goes on there? I’ll email you to ask some more questions.
Elliott, check your e-mail – just sent you a response e-mail, including contact phone numbers for the China Daily.
First off, great post. Seriously. Great post.
Second, though I generally agree with you regarding what is happening, I do not see it as dire, I see it as a very long “getting to know you stage.” I am not pessimistic and I think that is because my expectations were pretty low to begin with. I just think the whole thing is going to take a whole lotta time and that there will be one step back for every two steps forward along the way.
Good to know you are not so pessimistic. The issue is how the two countries behave in a “black swan” situation. Do American institutions and the structure of representative democracy prevent popular opinion from driving nationalistic policy decisions that destabilize the world? Not sure I’m 100% confident about that. Does nationalistic Chinese popular opinion force policy makers from balancing between what everyday people want to see (“get tough on America”) vs what might be in China’s long term interest (“responsible stakeholder in global economic system”)? I guess I’m glad that there isn’t direct democracy in either the US and China — and I’m not sure that a sudden shift to a US-style representative democracy in China *in 2009* would really be in the national interest of the US. I believe a gradual increase in political liberalization would absolutely be in the interest of Chinese people, but I would challenge the assertion that direct democracy adds to global stability at all points in time and in all situations.
Another great post, thank you, Elliott.
In my view, balkanization on the internet is indeed something which needs to be addressed. And I agree it is great to see internet relationships move to a more personal level, even if not in person (esp. for those living far apart), but at least to one-on-one online social networking. And I believe that these steps must take place even if the internet or shared institutions, shared language, shared currency, shared trade, universal education around the world in principles of “world citizenship” and “unity-in-diversity”, etc. among the human family that we are are less than ideal or complete.
However, I also believe that steps toward officializing shared language, federated world government, world citizen education, etc. must also be actively pursued because these are really preconditions for a lasting unity (a unity-in-diversity, that is) in which deeper relationships can be built. I am aware of no country which tolerates an absence of an at-least de facto official language or languages that are taught throughout the country. I know of no country which fails to educate its people in respect for the whole nation. People would object that “we are one people” and would not tolerate having no common language or national identity (unless perhaps they are a linguistic minority who was conquered or is being asked to abandon their own language).
Likewise, do I believe that we must insist on appealing to our leaders to establish lasting and sustainable material bonds like an official language, world citizenship education, widely available internet, a World Court with actual jurisdiction, a General Assembly with actual authority, etc., which are preconditions for allowing the dialog you speak of to take root not only among an elite, but among the public. It is not that these are sufficient (as you well discuss), but I believe strongly that they are mutualistic preconditions. Otherwise, we are stuck in a hopelessly politicized environment which personal relationships alone cannot overcome.
The Soviet Union’s “unity” over Eastern Europe proved not to be sustainable, but just because these nations’ autonomy led to some conflicts or increased distrust and friction, does not mean that the autonomy itself was harmful–at least not their being freed from their previous low level of autonomy (nor, admittedly, does it mean that efforts should not be made for relations now between Russia and these nations to be improved). Likewise, the personal autonomy made available to the masses via internet availability and access to a common language (i.e., not being dependent on translators) can cause some initial commotion or even exacerbation of tensions, but it is an eventual prerequisite to a mature relationship.
Another comparison might be a young sibling’s foray into maturity and discussions or debate with others; he or she might embarrass his older siblings or parents as he or she demonstrates ignorance, lack of social skills, or unabashed selfishness and pettiness, but the innate desire to communicate is an exercise which can and usually does lead to learning. All must be given that chance, especially if their are more mature individuals around who can guide their development, seeing the bigger picture and capable of looking for and pointing out the legitimate concerns of both sides.
I believe we have to attack the problem on both fronts: managed and thought-out but progressively adopted global-level institutional and technical integration and strengthening, along with one-on-one relationship building.
Brett,
A well-thought-out comment that I’m not sure I totally understand.
Agree with you that it can’t be just informal people-to-people interactions and that institutions are necessary.
I’d be curious what specific changes to existing institutions you are proposing.
Also, are you suggesting that we all learn Chinese? Or that Chinese speakers and English speakers learn Esperanto?! I didn’t fully understand your point about language. I agree that more people should learn Chinese. I don’t think anyone wants to learn some kind of dead, world language like Esperanto!
As far as language, I am _not_ advocating for learning any particular language now as a world language–I am supporting the move to have a global _vote_ to decide an auxiliary world language (“auxiliary” as in not replacing native language(s) but being taught alongside them), assuming a majority of nations could be found willing to abide by such a body’s representative decision, then teaching that language in all schools throughout the world.
English, as an already de facto world language, but it is still by no means universally taught, taught deeply enough, or at an early enough age around the world to be seen, at least at present, as a fully global language. If it were, there would be no immigrant language problem for the U.S., nor the necessity for Chinese or Americans to learn other languages when they travel abroad.
Advocates of constructed languages like Esperanto point out that people could learn the language more quickly (as they generally follow simple rules without exceptions) and could overcome nationalistic objections which prevent acceptance of the likes of English. I’m not advocating for either Esperanto or English, however, as I believe either type of language could serve just fine as a world language as long as there was a global representative vote to decide and implement the issue.
If English is as popular as some people believe, it should have no problem winning a majority over to it. If on the other hand, the likes of Esperanto could break a dead-lock, then if everyone knew that it would be taught everywhere, then the language is demonstrably capable of expanding beyond the millions who already speak it as long as there would be sufficient incentive for the widespread learning of it to take place (unlike now). But again, I’m not arguing for any particular language, just that it should be voted on and universally (or nearly universally) implemented.
Although the issue may seem a little bit moot as far as China and U.S. relations (since China has already begun instructing in English), there are two basic reasons I can see why it is most definitely still relevant to this discussion:
1) While a common language can certainly promote economic development, the difficulty in learning the language–or changing economic and sociopolitical dynamics–might conceivably cause disenfranchisement in China in the future in learning English which would trump economic incentives for learning it (especially if English were not consolidated in a global democratic forum which could give it more international legitimacy). Despite a half century of friendly relations with the U.S., and despite a higher preexisting level of education and literacy than China had, Japan still has, according to what I have read, poor English levels, so there is no guarantee that it will become universal in China either.
2) Related to #1, China’s collective efforts toward English will be diluted so long as the rest of the world has not committed to a common language. To the extent that Asia, South America, and Africa do not commit widely and early on to English (and to the extent their influence grows), other countries such as China will need to inefficiently spend their resources learning other lingua francas as well. There’s nothing wrong with learning other languages (just as Chinese are free to learn the different “dialects” within China if they wish or learn foreign languages for cultural reasons), but the point is that this should not be necessary: if there is a single language, one can go anywhere, Google anywhere (at least assuming an international audience), start a chat room anywhere, have a conversation with any foreign visitor or immigrant, etc., and still be able to communicate–without having to learn French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, etc. to do so
While no doubt certain individuals would complain about fears of “Newspeak” and other similar paranoia, as long as it is made clear that it is not meant to supplant native languages, and if other countries insist on it (and work together to do so), eventually even any reluctant superpowers would feel a need to participate in and/or abide by global democratic processes which can benefit them as well.
As far as other global institutional-level changes,
1) Instruct children in all the schools of the world (and in media) about the concept of world citizenship. This would not be meant to promote a loyalty that compromises essential loyalties to one’s own country, but, just as loyalty to one’s nation does not at all compromise loyalty to one’s family, city or state, so too must people around the world be explicitly taught that, with increasing contact with others, they must adopt a mindset which allows them to appreciate a certain amount of diversity and the need to progressively acquire unity with them, without compromising their fundamental values and identity.
They should be taught to consider the repercussions of their words on the feelings of other races and nations, be taught to appreciate the beauty and strength of the racial diversity in the world, treat women as equal in status to men, and recognize that they have moral responsibilities as well as rights in conjunction with their relations with other nations and nationalities, and that their interests are inextricably tied together. This could help allay the extreme nationalism which still today only does injury to the self-interest of each nation.
Implicitly or explicitly all countries inculcate national citizenship, and there is a particular need now to also do so at the international level. Just as the U.S. (and China) earlier had to forge a national identity in education and media when one did not yet exist, so too is there a need today to forge a global identity which does not seek to stifle a love of country or ethnicity, but puts it in a wider and more sustainable context.
2) At the U.N. level, there is a need for reform which can both ensure that the will of the majority is actually made binding. However, in order for this to take place, trust has to be built that some sovereignty, and even power of compulsory financial support, can be trustfully given to it (just as in the history of the U.S., there was a great debate about how our nation could be made strong enough yet decentralized enough so that the states were willing to cede state sovereignty to it). Here are some specific ideas that have been proposed:
a) Make the General Assembly a bicameral legislature or otherwise make it somewhat proportional to population. China and the U.S. would never give up their veto power–even if it meant greater trust and will by other nations to abide by U.N. decisions in their interest–as long as their populous nations had the same weight as a tiny island state. (The island state of Tuvalu, for example, with a population of 10,000, has more than 100,000 times fewer people than China or India, yet they all have the same voting power in the U.N. General Assembly!–the legislative body where democracy was supposed to take place on a global stage.) This does not mean things would be exactly proportional to population (just as it is not in the U.S.), since smaller states still want to have some greater say to ensure their minority voice will be heard.
b) The Security Council should not have permanent member with veto power. This is beyond the means of any standard of justice, not to mention efficiency. But it is also not in the real interest of even the permanent members who wish to see much difficult work done through the U.N. that is in their interests if it causes the U.N. to be seen as a mere tool of the great powers.
c) The General Assembly should require a basic minimum in standards of human rights for its member states, preventing representation by absolute dictators who do not have any real support from their people. So long as such members are allowed, not to mention have the ability to chair human rights bodies and the like, countries will not be willing to cede sovereignty to such a body. Without such restrictions, powerful democratic countries will not be willing to cede some of their sovereignty to the world legislature.
d) The World Court should have jurisdiction not merely in cases where both parties agree! Independent courts can moderate the powers of the other branches and offer justice. As it is now, the court can only take cases when two member states agree to have their cases brought before it. Such an arrangement would be laughable if any nation had such a weak court.
If there is a legitimate, and correspondingly, a powerful venue to which we can turn for resolving international disputes (including even border determination), inter-cultural relations can be less mired down in political jabs and swipes.
Interesting reading!
How to deal with the countless numbers of strong 50-cent army that are not truly represent the ordinary people but constantly distort public opinion on the world at large?
Dry wit and an endless supply of humor – which seems to be the kryptonite to the 50CP people.
Dry Wit and an endless supply of humor. It seems to be like Kryptonite to 50CP people. :P
Seems to me there are plenty of “free” unpaid “patriots” defending China’s online honor, without the strong need for paid actors like the 50-cent army, at least in English. What do you think?
It depends on the people that are responding in a debate. The more they tend to accuse you of being a member of the C.I.A./N.S.A./Mossad/etc… well, paid or not, it does not reflect to well on the P.R. Chinese educational system.
I already tried to get the CIA to pay me 50 cents a comment to “harmonize” discussion on US-China issues. They told me they couldn’t afford it, something about a deficit or some crap.
To my surprise they suggested I contact the CCP, who is getting so sophisticated with this stuff that they are actually hiring the “redneck” version of this duo, so that that they can generate/direct the arguments. This way, they can keep convincing people how ill suited democracy is for China, well, right now neway, they promise to get to it later sometime(deja vu?).
On an unrelated note, Fox news pays me to post the phrases “that’s un-American” and “thay’re takin our jawbs!” on various websites. I just made a buck
I believed in the free Western press, even after my confidence had been battered by scandal after reprehensible scandal. But when the Tibet protests started last year, I eagerly awaited the China vs. Free Press titanic battle. What happened?
The Western press ignored what was going on, and started simply reciting the Tibet narrative. No wonder the Chinese got so pissed off. A lot of the blame has to be laid at the feet of CNN, which used the 6/4 incident to as its first major story which propelled it to fame. I mean, there was so much truth to be reported, and instead the press just said the same crap that they always say. Really destroyed the last threads of trust that I had in them.
With them controlling what Americans see and hear about China, it’s not difficult to see why things have turned out this way.
PS we might want to check ourselves more carefully before using pejorative slurs like “redneck” in polite discussion.
Kaiser Kuo is somewhat odd and strange. He’s too much into himself, and very egoistical in real life. If he was in America, he would be a nobody, but in China, he thinks he’s God’s gift to the locals there. Too bad he’s always so down and negative on China. He tends to strut his stuff there, and most of the time, he hangs around with the foreign expats all the time, instead of with the locals.
I speak from experience of having met and hung around Kaiser Kuo.
Elliott: personal attacks removed, commenter did not confirm his email nor respond to me
Kaiser Kuo is correct in saying that the Internet allows people of like mind to gravitate towards each other, just as birds of a feather flock together.
Elsewhere, I’ve read that the Internet has even discouraged integration between immigrants with the host population in Britain, since unlike in say the 1970s where immigrants were far removed from their home country, the Internet now allows them to maintain close and instant communication with fellows in their countries of origin.
I guess notions that the Internet fostered closer interaction and understanding between different peoples and peoples of different viewpoints and inclinations was just as utopian as the notion that heavy metal rockers around the world were some kind of worldwide brotherhood united in a common love of heavy metal rock and the rocker lifestyle, dress, long hair and so on.
Heck! Even people of the same religion are not a universal brotherhood and World Wars I & II were viscious, bloody fights between different Christian nations or Europe.
So let’s not get carried away by techno-determinism.
It seems that Disney’s willingness to buy “The Pleasant Goat and the Big Big Wolf” is stirring some reactions against a cultural invasion.
http://www.cnngo.com/shanghai/none/chinese-culture-sale-disney-buying-578700
Thanks for letting me know about this Paul!
There are deeper issues at play here. “None of [China's issues were] deemed newsworthy by Western news media” – is this really a grievance? The Chinese media is just as insular. Let’s put ourselves into each other’s shoes for a moment.