10 Responses to “China: Watching from the Sidelines”

1. hurley Says:
   August 7th, 2006 at 4:00 pm

   ‘the “Washington Consensusâ€? that favors open, liberal democracy.’

   Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Russia, any number of -stans…?

   How much of the “Washington Consensus” consists of countries with black sites, willing to torture at Washington’s bidding?

   No offence intended to mc- masterchef, but the categorization is absurd on the face of it, and sinister beyond. The US has its virtues (however diminishing), but to hold it up as a friend to liberal democracy across the board makes no sense, and does the ideal no favors. I look forward to the show.

2. joshua hendrickson Says:
   August 7th, 2006 at 6:04 pm

   China is perhaps the world’s premier example of how a country can adopt as much capitalism as it likes without having to bother with democracy. America’s presumption that the former requires the latter has been shattered, as perhaps it always was doomed to be. After all, why should democracy or human rights be necessary adjuncts to the pursuit of capital? It’s easy enough to make plenty of money through slave-labor or near-slave-labor; however, running a country gets complicated if you let the rabble actually participate in the governing process without throwing them into the Ministry of Love. I propose that capitalism is not in any way a natural friend of freedom, democracy, or human rights; after all, money, being the ultimate agreed-upon illusion, has no morality in itself. In other words, we have democracy and human rights (to the extent that we do in fact actually possess those things) in spite of, not because of, our economic system. I think, given the possibly increasingly influential example of China, that the chances of democracy and human rights surviving through to the twenty-second century are slimming down faster than an anorexic in a steam-press.

3. joshua hendrickson Says:
   August 7th, 2006 at 6:11 pm

   The mercantilist position just now outlined describes not only China’s approach to the world. I think, to an extent sometimes lesser, sometimes greater, it describes the American approach as well.

   But aside from that: what I said above, about China’s increasingly influential example? What the ROS guest just said about Syria’s leader calling China’s approach to authoritarian government an example … very chilling. Not surprising, not at all, but nonetheless terrifying.

4. mc_masterchef Says:
   August 7th, 2006 at 6:11 pm

   I wouldn’t deny by any means that the U.S.’ commitment to its professed values has always been shaky in some areas, but does it make a difference that it does at least profess those values? China’s been quite clear in distinguishing its policies of “non-intereference” from ours. I’m a believer that international norms of behavior do have at least some real effect on behavior, so I’m concerned at the idea that China’s frank disinterest in these issues might become a dominant narrative in world relations.

   The blog MountainRunner had a good piece on China’s involvement in Africa a few months back, and I’ve bookmarked a few other pieces on the subject in my delicious feed here. Looking forward to catching the show, but it’s off to work with me now!

5. joshua hendrickson Says:
   August 7th, 2006 at 6:27 pm

   Mc masterchef,

   America may profess these values, but unfortunately, “shaky” pretty well defines America’s commitment to these values. As always, putting its money where its mouth is (both at home and in foreign policy) would be much more effective than merely professing them. Walk the walk, America; don’t just talk the talk. Provide universal health care. Support only truly democratic nations. Treat all peoples as equals. Doing such things would be great! They would make America into the beacon of freedom that it proclaims to be. But this doesn’t happen. In short:

   The difference is that America is a hypocrite and China is not.

   I remember seeing a tv news interview with one of China’s leaders round about 1989, probably post Tianenman Square. It was the first and so far the only time I can recall seeing an interview with a world leader who did not in any way speak hypocritically. He openly, shamelessly professed that his party was interested in holding power, period. It was like listening to O’Brian in Orwell’s 1984: the only object of power is power. You’ll never hear an American senator or president be that honest, though. We like our masks of humanity on the faces of our leaders, not lying shattered on the floor.

6. joshua hendrickson Says:
   August 7th, 2006 at 6:42 pm

   The admission by the current guest that in Friedman’s Flat World economies rather than politics will define national friendships seems to support what I have been saying: Morality, human rights, freedom and democracy, are not necessary to the globalized economy, and in fact exist in spite of it. And this is a good thing?

7. sidewalker Says:
   August 7th, 2006 at 11:37 pm

   As the US becomes more authoritarian and China less so, as they both seek global dominance through economic power and military might. As both need to feed a huge and insatiable population of consumers by securing the world’s resources, one has to wonder, is there really any difference in what these countries covet?

8. mc_masterchef Says:
   August 8th, 2006 at 9:35 am

   I wasn’t able to listen to the show live (time zone differences pretty much rule that out) but I’ve heard it now. Very interesting discussion, ranging over quite a broad range (I wrote a senior term paper on the Uyghurs, so they’re a bit of an interest of mine as well). Glad to see I was able to squeak in my question before it went to air.

   For me the two most interesting points raised during the program were Thomas Barnett’s suggestion that given China’s mercantalist program of relatively shallow, extractive relations with countries in L.America, Africa, and the M.East, and their limited ability to spawn broader economic development, they will increasingly be seen in those countries as the negative face of globalization. A number of the China/Africa articles I’ve collected in my bookmarks suggest such reactions are already beginning, particularly in cases where cheap imported Chinese labor is supplanting locals.

   Equally important I thought was John Pomfret’s response to my question, where he suggested that the Chinese global ruleset (to use a Barnett-esque turn of phrase) was essentially undefined, outside the basic bottom-line business of business. I would subscribe to Dr. Barnett’s later comment, where he says that we have come to the conclusion that dictatorships are not viable long-term solutions for development; that’s actually part of the reason why a rival “Beijing Consensus” cocerns me, since I think a country with as many unaddressed internal weaknesses as China (whose long- or even mid-term stability I am unassured of) is not a particularly good model for world-wide emulation, at least as long as it retains its current autocratic and form.

9. sfh970218 Says:
   August 8th, 2006 at 9:44 am

   I have to admit that I am quite disturbed by the tone of our respected host Christopher Lydon. It’s a tone which pretty much depicts the world as a playground for imperial dominance, in which you are either an oppressor or an oppressed. Thus, we hear the “breather”, which we happen to give the Chinese when we are distracted with Iraq, Lebanon and etc.. But the fact is that nobody asked us to go to Iraq; actually most of the world (including the Chinese) didn’t want us to go, but we went anyway.

   This reality is that despite its recent rapid development, China faces far more serious challenges than the US does, with its environment, population, and social structure. Any mishap in these areas could easily throw the whole country into turmoil. As to many of its oil endeavors overseas, its policy is not only mercantile, but in some sense also comes out of desperation, realizing that all the cheap sources of oil have been taken by existing big players.

   But we are warriors, and we have to find an arch-enemy, don’t we? Now we happen to see a country, which only recently began to feed its population a bit better, and a growing number of people are interested in automobiles (we worry too much here too; let the Chinese do the worry and see how they will stack their cars for parking), we seem to have found one at last. Well, with that mentality, we are not only no fair players, we are essentially imperialists.

   The way I look at the relations between the U.S. and China concurs with some of the program’s guests’, which is that it’s a basically a bilaterally intertwined and sustainable relationship, unless we deliberately squander it. I hope the program guests’ views made a dent on that of our host, and hopefully of the audience as well.

10. vatsyayan Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Can someone enlighten me on this: competition or not, “non-conflict” is assured if there is a symbiotic relationship between the entities. In that context, how much China is / or going to be dependent (economically, politically, etc…) on the US and vice-versa?

Write a Reply