Uncomfortable Question, China-Syria Edition
I've criticized former US Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman in the past for his appearance- intentional or otherwise- at a political demonstration in Beijing in February. Basically, I felt it was inappropriate at best for a representative of the American government to insert himself in such an incident.
Yet look at what's just happened in Syria:
Tens of thousands of Syrians on Friday poured into a square that has emerged as a focus of defiance in Hama, Syria’s fourth-largest city, as the French and American ambassadors stayed there for a second day in what their countries called a gesture of support for demonstrators and Syrian officials lambasted as interference.
The comparison raises troubling questions. If it was wrong for Huntsman to appear at an anti-government rally in Beijing, is it similarly wrong for Robert Ford to travel to Hama, Syria in a show of solidarity with anti-government protesters there? To raise the stakes further, what if Huntsman had flown to, say, Chongqing to lend his explicit support to an anti-government uprising there? Such a brazen act would have almost surely resulted in his immediate termination as well as the end of any 2012 electoral aspirations.
Or, perhaps, the two cases are different and should be treated differently. Syria may be an important country in its neighborhood, but it's no burgeoning power like China. Whether Assad stays or goes likely means little to US interests in the Middle East, while Washington would be very, very, very careful before endorsing any sort of regime change in China. So while the American heart might be with the demonstrators in both instances, the American brain knows that what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander, or in this case the Peking duck.
China-US Security and Foreign Policy Articles
When I'm not blogging, my current occupation is that of a graduate student in international affairs. And even though I'm on summer vacation I'd be remiss not to point out a very interesting article by Aaron L. Friedberg entitled "Hegemony with Chinese Characteristics" in the new issue of The National Interest. Friedberg's topic is one that gets at the root of international relations theory- how does China's regime type affect its relations with the outside world, specifically the United States?
I'll have more to say on Friedberg's piece later, but in the meantime here are two responses to the piece published by TNI; one by Andrew Nathan* and the other by Minxin Pei. In addition, the excellent foreign policy bloggers Daniel Larison and Greg Scoblete have discussed the pieces extensively in the past few days and their contributions are well worth reading as well.
*I was a student in Andrew Nathan's course on Chinese foreign policy at Columbia this spring and know him slightly.
Funny, She Doesn’t Look Druish
James Fallows has lately collated a few dispatches from readers who, for one reason or another, have pinpointed what it means to look 'American'. Given our multi-ethnic makeup, looking American seems to be about as vague as 'speaking European'. Many of the readers though have said that we Yanks have a distinguishable gait, dress-sense, posture, and confidence that sets us apart from our look-alike cousins elsewhere.
Being 6 foot 2, broad shouldered, with light brown hair and blue eyes, I've often been correctly identified as an American well before my accent could give it away- at least whenever I've been in Europe. Europeans had little trouble distinguishing me from the many Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch, and Eastern Europeans with whom I share similar physical characteristics.
(For the record, I'm half Norwegian and half Italian)
The Chinese, though, often guessed I was German. Once, in a Kunming elevator, I overheard the following conversation between two young Chinese women:
'He's American'
'Nah, he's definitely German. Look at his eyes!'
'Americans have blue eyes too!'
'But Americans aren't that tall. He's German'
I couldn't resist telling them, in Mandarin, that I was American, causing them to blush and giggle once they realized I had been eavesdropping the whole time.
I've occasionally erred in this regard. Once in Xiamen, I was sitting with a friend at a cafe when a very attractive young Asian woman walked in. I said rather too loudly, 'Wow, she's beautiful', only to have her turn around and reply to me in a standard US accent, "Thanks!' (Makes me glad my comment fell on the innocent side).
Usually though it's pretty easy to tell Americans apart, even from our Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European cousins. Americans tend to have a less natural look, while Europeans tend to be more liberal with longer, unkempt hair and beards. In Asia, meanwhile, I could always without hesitation spot the ABC from the, well, CBC just based on dress and posture.
Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?
Democracy, the “West”, and China
Chris commented below:
And because the West loves them. Westerners still generally believe “Western democracy” (scare quotes, because that should be plural, but everybody seems to assume the entire West -whatever that is- is a monolith) is the best of all possible systems. And so any Chinese (Iranian, Vietnamese, North Korean…) espousing values generally consistent with “Western democratic” ideals gets a lot of airplay.
This is an important distinction and I'm glad Chris brought it up. Many Westerners, particularly Americans, confuse and conflate concepts of 'democracy' and 'pro-West'. What makes many people in the US nervous about China isn't that China's an authoritarian state per se, but rather that China is beginning to challenge American hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region.
In the Bush years, democracy promotion became the ostensible theme of American foreign policy, but in reality it masked Washington's real intentions: building pro-American regimes. This hypocrisy was exposed quite blatantly in the 2005 Gaza elections, when the Bush Administration cheered for democratic elections up until the moment that Hamas won them.
How does this apply to China? Being a quasi-optimist, I'd say that over time odds are that the government will embrace some form of democracy. But as Chris points out, this democracy may not be as friendly to perceived Western interests as many Westerners might hope.
Ultimately, a realist would say that notions of democracy and autocracy are quaint compared to the overall dynamic taking place. As China grows, and it will continue to grow, it will begin to challenge US dominance in its region. The historical moment of American unipolarity is beginning to end, and in a few decades we'll see a new world where Washington will be forced to share influence with Beijing, Delhi, Brasilia, Moscow, and elsewhere.
But democracy is still worth supporting in China, if only so that people like Liu Xiaobo do not languish in prison for voicing aspirations that many of us simply take for granted.
Odds and Ends
Apologies for the relative silence as of late, but here are a few comments to whet your appetite:
- Isn't the obvious conclusion from the Obama/Scott Brown/health care debacle that the American political system is hopelessly dysfunctional? We're faced with the odd situation that a president elected in a near-landslide from a party with large majorities in both houses of Congress cannot pass a basic element of his agenda due to the dogged intransigent by the minority party, who have shown that if nothing else they possess discipline. Many have suggested doing away with the filibuster rules; I'd go a step further and junk the US Senate entirely. But no- such an idea is an anathema to a large number of Americans who believe in the divinity of a group of men who lived in an era in which powdered wigs were worn to court and black people were counted as 60 percent citizens.
- Obama's biggest problem is that he labors under the misconception that the Republicans are operating in good faith and are a worthy opposition party. They're not. They're simply a group of men and women who, facing near-extinction after last year's election results, have devoted themselves fully to blocking Obama's legislative agenda. They have no principles, and it is important to recall that next time you hear one of their leaders blathering on about big government. Any sincerity they might have had on that subject is laughable; nobody said a word about government spending when Bush was in office.
- I was going to write a blog-post about how the media is overreacting to the latest round of China-US bickering but then Christina Larson of Foreign Policy did it for me
- A word about the Dalai Lama, though. The Chinese media goes to great lengths describing the Lama as a wicked, horrible human being, a view totally at odds with his international reputation as a beatific spiritual leader. All Beijing does by vilifying the Dalai Lama- and Rebiya Kadeer for that matter- is make themselves seem ridiculous and out of touch to the rest of the world. Wouldn't it be easier to calmly let them agitate, knowing that neither side can realistically achieve any sort of independence? Or is this propaganda merely meant for domestic consumption?
Perspectives of China- Podcast
I've spent part of this morning listening to a podcast lecture organized by Folger on the subject of foreign impressions of China. The three panelists are Rachel DeWoskin, author of Foreign Babes in Beijing and a former actress in the Chinese soap opera of the same name, Orville Schell, the distinguished China scholar and author of many books, and our man James Fallows.
The lecture is informal and funny; all three authors recount humorous stories of their experiences in the country as well as observations they've made. In particular, their account of how the world looks from the Chinese perspective is well worth listening to.
The link to the podcast is here.
(via China Digital Times)
The Perils of Writing About China
Some months ago a young writer named Thomas Talhelm single-handedly blamed Peter Hessler, the author of River Town, for ruining his China experience. Any time Talhelm felt like recording an observation, he realized that Hessler had written about it already; only better. Truly, he wondered, is there anything new left to say about China?
Hessler himself replied, apologizing and saying that his own experience in China was also ruined; this time by Mark Saltzman, the guy who wrote Iron & Silk. He then goes on to make a very wise point about the art of writing:
Fuling wasn't an important place. Many foreigners spoke the language better than I did, and many people had a deeper knowledge of the culture. But I thought of myself as a writer, not a China expert. My training was more along those lines; before going to China I had worked as an ethnographer in southeastern Missouri, and I had thought a lot about the social sciences and theories of observation. In college I took a lot of courses in fiction and nonfiction writing. I had very few ideas about China, but I had strong ideas about voice, structure, set pieces, story structures. People often don't realize how technical writing is. It's a lot harder than learning Chinese or learning about China, that's for sure. By the time I left Fuling, I had spent only two years engaged seriously with China, but thirteen years engaged seriously with writing. If the ratio had been the opposite thirteen years in China, and two years thinking about how to write that book would not have happened. I might have known a lot, but I wouldn't have known how to express it, and how to structure it. In any case, that book is more about a learning process; it's about how language, people, and culture came into focus for me. It's not about "China" in the strictest sense.
Exactly. As a person who has been writing about China for five years, both as an amateur and professional, I believe Hessler's point is spot on.
Writing is hard. Deceptively so. At first glance, River Town seems to be a fairly mundane rendition of one man's life in a small Chinese town. Few of Hessler's observations were that extraordinary and ring true with virtually anyone who has spent time in the country. Many of us have had experiences that were very similar to Hessler's, in fact. Many of us have tried to write about it. But there's only one River Town.
River Town brings to mind one of my theories about writing. To me, good writing comes in two main forms. First is the type in which the author's talent simply leaps off the page, in which the prose is so dazzling there's little a reader can do but admire it. Vladimir Nabokhov springs to mind. So does Marquez.
The second type of good writing is more subtle. This is writing that appears quotidian and average on the surface and gives the reader a distinct sense that he too could have written it. He probably could have. But he didn't. A classic example is the writer Bill Bryson, who has made a killing from writing travel books in an easy, conversational style. I am certain many people who have read Bryson have sat down and tried to match his feats. But they can't. It may not seem like it, but Bryson's damn good at what he does.
I'd place Peter Hessler into the second category. As ordinary as his observations might seem, as conventional his prose style might be, River Town is nonetheless an extremely well-written book. So is Oracle Bones, which Hessler wrote after River Town was published. I understand Hessler has just published a third book, and I am reasonably certain that it will be well written, too.
We're lucky to have Hessler around, but there are countless ways in which others could, and will, describe China in the printed word. Without a doubt, this remains a beguiling country, one rich in possibility, and full of humor, tragedy, and joy.
Who knows, perhaps down the line someone will write a blog post lamenting how Thomas Talhelm- or even Matt Schiavenza- ruined their China experience. Stranger things have happened.
Huntsman- Our Man in Beijing
President Obama has appointed Jon Huntsman, governor of Utah, as ambassador to China. This is interesting on several fronts, to wit:
1. Never in my memory has a governor, particularly one with a national reputation as has Huntsman, left the office for a diplomatic posting. Particularly for a president from the opposition party.
2. Huntsman earned his national reputation for supporting civil unions for same-sex couples and for supporting government action on climate change. This is unusual for any Republican, much less one who represents one of the most conservative states in the US. This willingness to offer reform has led David Plouffe, the architect of Obama's presidential election victory, to deem Huntsman the most formidable potential challenger to Obama in 2012.
3. Huntsman seems well-qualified for the job. He speaks Mandarin as a result of a Mormon mission he did in Taiwan. He served as an ambassador under both President Bush 41 and President Bush 43.
4. By appointing a Republican to be the China ambassador, he sends a signal to US watchers here that constructive engagement with the Middle Kingdom is a bipartisan issue.
By all accounts, a masterstroke by Obama. It is a little puzzling, though, why Huntsman took the job. Being the governor of a state is far more prestigious than being an ambassador, and working for Obama probably excludes him from challenging the president at any time. Huntsman is apparently motivated by a sense of duty, though most politicians get where they are by worshiping their own career prospects, not the wishes of a president they didn't support.
Debate and China
I didn't watch the debate (I might later if I can find a spare hour and a half and a decent feed) but have read enough reactions, spin, and prognostications to give me an impression of what happened. After all, in American politics, substance typically means very little during election season.
IR blogger Dan Drezner watched the debate and asked, rhetorically, which foreign policy topic was missing. The answer is China. Nary a word was spoken by either candidate about the Middle Kingdom, a startling omission when considering how important US/China relations are to world affairs.
There are two explanations for why China was ignored, one incidental and one important. First, the financial crisis dominated the first half of a debate meant to focus entirely on foreign policy, so the amount of time dedicated to world issues was truncated significantly. Perhaps had the debate lasted thirty minutes longer the subject would have swung around to China and East Asia.
Secondly, there simply isn't much breathing room between the two candidates' positions on China, just as there really hasn't been much in the past thirty-five odd years. Since Nixon's visit and the restoration of Sino-US relations in the 1970s, there has generally been a broad consensus across the mainstream political spectrum about China. Both Republicans and Democrats tacitly acknowledge the "One China" policy while still protecting Taiwan. Both parties favor economic engagement, though both also lapse into populist rhetoric on occasion and denounce outsourcing. Both admonish Beijing for human rights abuses, including liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and conservative Republicans like George W. Bush. Both parties agree that China should apply more pressure on various rogue nations, though neither party knows how to go about persuading them.
Barack Obama and John McCain have extremely divergent views on Iraq, Afghanistan, India/Pakistan, the Middle East, Israel, and just about every other important foreign policy consideration within the American purview. Yet on China, the two don't have much to discuss, which is ultimately why China is typically omitted in foreign policy debates.
Will the US Election Affect China Policy?
John McCain's victory in the Florida primary makes his eventual nomination likely, which is bad news for this Democrat. McCain is clearly the most electable Republican left in the race, and coupled with a Democratic nomination of Hillary Clinton, the Arizona Senator would give the Elephant Team a fair to good shot at retaining the White House this November.
What would a McCain presidency look like? Ignoring his positions on social and economic matters (areas in which the president has less influence anyway), what would a McCain foreign policy look like? In particular, how would a President McCain conduct American policy toward China?
For the most part, very little will change. President Bush's policy toward China has been relatively uncontroversial, and in fact most observers feel he handled the one Sino-American crisis of his presidency (the 2001 air collision over Hainan Island) fairly well. Bush also has solicited Beijing's help in prodding North Korea toward disarmament, though without success so far. Mostly, American policy toward China has been consistent since the re-establishment of diplomatic ties in the 1970s. McCain probably won't deviate very much, and for good reason.
What troubles me about McCain is his extreme militarism. I would worry that he would respond to a Cross-Straits crisis with calls to action, and it seems that his solution to every global crisis is to send American troops along. The adoring media gave him credit for calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, but many fail to recall that McCain's objection was that there were too few, not too many, troops. In McCain's view, militarism and imperialism are virtues that Americans are honored to have. Few in China would agree.
On the other hand, McCain doesn't seem to jive with the neo-conservative* notion that the US is obliged to spread "freedom" by force. He seems to be more of a realist than Bush, and backing off on democracy promotion as an official policy would do wonders for America's image in the developing world. One task the next American president will face is repairing the nation's "soft power", a necessary skill in an era when the Chinese conducts a charm offensive throughout Africa and other poor regions.
Fortunately, China is a stable country and the odds of a hot war over Taiwan are slim. Financial ties between the two countries are such that neither side wants a falling out, and China is decades away from attaining the same degree of global supremacy that America now possesses. I would be surprised if US-China relations were to suffer much no matter who is elected president.
All the same, I'd still say that a President Clinton or President Obama would serve America's interests abroad far better than their Republican counterparts, if only marginally in the case of China.
*Speaking of neo-conservatism, one silver lining in McCain's victory tonight is the imminent withdrawal of Rudy Giuliani, the erstwhile Republican front-runner whose aggressive foreign policy would have made Bush seem like a piker. Nonetheless, Giuliani will apparently endorse McCain and I'd expect most of his supporters will transfer their affections to the Senator.