Overstating (and Understating) US-China Brinksmanship
The commentariat is making too much of Barack Obama's decision to skip China on his current Asian tour. Obama visited China last year, and Hu Jintao is scheduled for a key state visit at the beginning of next year. Despite the usual sniping over currency, oceanic sovereignty, and human rights, US-China relations haven't changed much in a tangible sense in the past few years.
That being said, as time passes the US will be forced to take a confrontational stance against China due to the shifts in relative power between the two countries. Barring an unlikely economic collapse in China, it's fair to assume that China's economy will continue to grow faster than America's for the foreseeable future. Therefore, China's relative power is likely to grow too, which means that the US will face a strategic choice: either make increasing concessions to its new rival, or push back.
The American public seems to believe that the US should remain the world's preponderant power forever and ever, so the odds that any US leader will voluntarily make concessions to China are low. Therefore, conflict between the two is almost certainly destined to accelerate over time.
Any evolution of US policy toward China should not be viewed as a reflection of Obama's personal policy but rather as a reaction to present shifts in relative power. In other words, Obama seems like a 'China hawk' in comparison to Bush not because he feels any differently toward China but because the circumstances have increasingly dictated it.
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.
Winds of Change in China?
In recent weeks, there have been three interesting political developments in China. Most notably has been the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, the prominent dissident and Charter 08 signatory. For those looking for extensive coverage of Liu, look no further than the guys at the China Beat, who have really outdone themselves with their work on this issue. In particular, both Jeremiah Jenne of the Granite Studio and Gady Epstein of Forbes have written excellent posts about the Peace Prize.
While the politically sentient world has no doubt heard the news of Liu Xiaobo's victory, there have been two other recent developments that have attracted some interest from China watchers. First, Wen Jiabao seemed to stray a little bit off message in an interview with the journalist Fareed Zakaria, calling out for freedom and democracy in China. Most recently, 23 Communist Party elders have submitted an open letter to the Beijing leadership calling for an end to censorship and for more media freedom. This piece, by the Globe & Mail's Mark Mackinnon, indicates that the letter is tied in some ways to Wen's recent remarks.
It is unusual in China for events of this sort to occur within a short time span, so one might be tempted to think that the winds of change are blowing in the country. But as always, there are always a few caveats to consider.
First of all, the percentage of Chinese who are actively concerned with political liberalization in the country remains very small. This doesn't mean that the rest of the population actively supports the Party, but rather that for most people issues such as media censorship are annoyances that ultimately have little effect on their personal lives. The intellectual class in China is still a very, very small minority. They merely seem larger because many of them have become savvy at using new media tools such as Twitter to publish their thoughts.
In respect to Wen's remarks, the premier has always seemed to be more a 'man of the people' than the wooden, charisma-free Hu Jintao. Prior to his ascension to his current post, he was best known as a top aide to Zhao Ziyang, the premier purged in 1989 following his opposition to the Tiananmen Square crackdown. If there was a current Chinese political figure capable of making such remarks, it would be Wen.
Even still, 'freedom' and 'democracy' mean different things to the Chinese Communist Party than they do to everyone else. Not even a relative 'liberal' like Wen would advocate anything resembling multi-party elections in China, and the notion of a free-wheeling media landscape where criticism of the Party is tolerated remains out of the question for the foreseeable future.
Given the long view, though, change is inevitable. It's difficult to remain a cool-headed rationalist when considering the plight of Liu Xiaobo and his wife, Liu Xia, who have been harrassed, imprisoned, (probably) tortured, and treated like enemies for what amounts to non-violent questioning of their country's political system. And it would be unfair not to recognize the very many other brave Chinese dissidents who risk their lives for the type of justice we in the West take for granted.
Charter 08, the document that Liu Xiaobo steered toward publication, was based on a similar document compiled by Czech intellectuals in 1977. One of the main authors of Charter 77, the poet Vaclav Havel, found himself the democratically elected leader of his country scarcely a decade and a half later. History can work in funny ways, sometimes.
I cannot foresee the future, but I believe that when China has a government worthy of its people, Liu Xiaobo and the countless others like him will be seen as national heroes.
Afghanistan Sport Killing and the True Cost of War
An explosive report in the Washington Post reveals that some US soldiers in Afghanistan killed random civilians for sport. The grim details are here.
The story reminded me of another, different military story I read the other day. Via Thomas Ricks, an Marine Iraqi veteran in North Carolina killed himself, unable to shake off the scars of the war upon his return to civilian life.
These two stories both underscore a theme that I've thought about lately- calculating the total casualties of war. Typically we define casualties as those men and women in uniform killed in action while fighting, in this case in Afghanistan and Iraq. But you could also argue quite easily that the man who killed himself back home was also a casualty, as is the wife and small child he left behind. They too are victims of a war whose effects are far more diffuse than the battlefields in some far away countries.
As with the disgusting killings in Afghanistan, my sympathies mainly lie of course with the poor locals caught in the soldiers' murderous game. Yet one could also argue convincingly that the soldiers too are victims- victims of an atmosphere of indiscriminate killing and senseless violence. To cite this is not to excuse them for their crime, but merely to point out that you cannot divorce the murders from their context.
I can remember as a child going to supermarkets or outdoor fairs and seeing forlorn, bearded men, often disabled, begging for money outside- Vietnam War veterans. I remember my parents telling me that these men went over to Vietnam, came back, and were not The Same. The ones I saw survived Vietnam, but they were certainly casualties too.
These are the stories one should keep in mind the next time someone appears on cable TV advocating an attack on Iran, or Venezuela, or whatever. Or when someone blithely says that more people are killed in car accidents each year than the total number of war dead overseas. The cost of war far exceeds the number of dollars spent and soldiers killed and injured, and is truly unquantifiable. I'd like to say that this sort of thing would give pause to our leaders, but I'm not that naive.
The Crux of the Issue
IOZ says here:
...the reason Muslims think that America is at war with Islam is because we keep bombing, invading, and occupying their countries! The reason "our troops" are in danger in Afghanistan is not that Rush Limbaugh hates mosques or that some Podunk preacher hates Islam's holy book, but because "our troops" are foreign occupiers.
Exactly. I'd say that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq probably have other matters on their mind than some idiot redneck in Florida burning a bunch of Korans.
That being said, this incident is another distressing example of the anti-'them' sentiment percolating in American society. From the anti-immigrant 'tea party' winning elections to the proposal to end birthright citizenship to the furor over the Islamic center near Ground Zero to the book burning party, there's been a disturbing trend away from tolerance this year. I'd like to think that once (if?) the economy gets better these incidents will diminish but I'm not necessarily sure that's going to happen.
Stay Bobby Stay
According to the Guardian, Bob Dylan will not be permitted to play concerts in Beijing and Shanghai, thus scuttling his proposed East Asia tour:
China's ministry of culture, which vets planned concerts by overseas artists, appeared wary of Dylan's past as an icon of the counterculture movement, said Jeffrey Wu, of the Taiwan-based promoters Brokers Brothers Herald.
Dylan fans denied the chance to see their hero might also blame Björk, who caused consternation among Chinese officials two years ago byshouting pro-Tibet slogans at a concert in Shanghai, Wu told Hong Kong's South China Morning Post.
The verdict scuppers Dylan's plans to play his first dates in mainland China. The singer, who plays around 100 concerts a year on his Never Ending Tour, had hoped to extend a multi-city Japanese leg with concerts in Beijing, Shanghai, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong. All these would now be called off, Wu told the newspaper.
I think I own or have listened to most of Bob Dylan's music, and I'm struggling to remember if China, Tibet, Taiwan received any mention at all in his lyrics. Dylan also hasn't been a counter-cultural icon since the early '60s. When the hippie movement blossomed in the latter part of that decade, Dylan was living on a farm in Woodstock, New York and making folk/country albums like John Wesley Harding and Nashville Skyline. In other words, he hasn't raged against the machine since before the Cultural Revolution was in full swing.
I also find the Bjork connection dubious. Ministry of Culture apparatchiks are understandably not paid to keep up with Western pop music, but had they seen just one of her videos they'd have realized that the Icelandic ice queen isn't exactly a bellwether of mainstream Western culture. If anything, her embrace of Tibetan rights would almost be enough to discredit the movement.
Once again, the Chinese government reveals its inept approach to international public relations regarding the Tibet issue. Moreover I doubt even the most rabid fenqing would have been riled up by a near-septuagenarian folk singer entertaining a few thousand nostalgic boomer laowai.
Sino and American Exceptionalism
One aspect of contemporary Sino-American scholarship largely overlooked is the notion that both China and the United States contain a notion of 'exceptionalism' that largely doesn't exist elsewhere in the world. The most immediate explanation I can think of for why is the enormous size of the two countries as well as their relative insularity from the outside world.
American exceptionalism is best exemplified by universal health care reform. Any rational comparative analysis of health care systems around the world would lead one to conclude that the US system is easily the least effective and the most expensive of any OECD country. The obvious solution would be to look at a model that works better- say, in France- and come up with ways to reform the American system so that it conforms to a higher international standard.
Yet opponents to universal health care in the US, represented neatly in the Republican Party, believe that because the US system is different it must therefore be better. As a result they devote their energy to devising mendacious explanations for why our broken system is in fact superior.
In foreign affairs right-wing Americans find no trouble distinguishing between acts of terror and violence by our political enemies between those of ourselves and allies such as Israel. If we do it, then it isn't bad, because we did it, right?
China for its part is at least well aware that it is a developing country, yet Sinic exceptionalism does exist. One notion shared between both countries is its persistent refusal to accept that they are imperial in nature.
Rather than accept that China annexed and colonized Tibet for strategic reasons, most Chinese I know find it easier to believe that Tibet has 'always been a part of China'. The same logic applies to Xinjiang. Beijing's historical designs for Central Asia are no different than that of the Russians, British, and other participants in the Great Game. Yet for some reason China pretends that that part of the world is intrinsically Chinese regardless of what the indigineous inhabitants say.
Americans are fond of the same fiction. I remember the usually-astute Bill Maher claiming on a talk show that America has never engaged in empire- building. Oh, really? Historians familiar with the late 19th/early 20th century administrations of McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt would likely beg to differ. In contemporary America, there are currently US soldiers stationed on bases throughout the world. As much as we'd like to believe that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were strictly for liberalization purposes, imperial strategy dictates otherwise. And from the Monroe Doctrine to Bush-era US skullduggery in Venezuela and Haiti the US has long claimed a certain dominion over the distribution of power in the Americas.
I'm not trying to be cynical for its own purpose but rather point out that nations the size of the US and China- and Russia- are imperial by nature.
Exceptionalism also shines through in politics. In China, the Communist Party is fond of saying that while democracy may be well and good for other countries it doesn't suit China. Chinese and Western apologists for the CCP parrot this line oblivious of how self-serving it is.
Why doesn't exceptionalism exist elsewhere? In Europe, there are so many countries crowded in a small area that insulation is simply untenable. Yet in China and the US our shared sense of exceptionalism can persist given our physical immensity.
I understand that geo-politics are much more complex than this, and that there are a great number of variables at play. But would elements in both China and America realize that both are merely members of the great big nation-state family rather than exceptional elements some progress could be made.
Google Thoughts
Like Chris I've hesitated to weigh in on the latest Google news, though needless to say I consider the company's brinkmanship with the Chinese government troubling news indeed. James Fallows of the Atlantic and Sky Canaves of the Wall Street Journal have provided a useful summary of what is and isn't happening with the search engine here.
In practical terms Google's possible departure from China would have little effect. For web searches in Chinese Google's rival Baidu is better, anyway. Google's YouTube doesn't work here, but Youku and Tudou both do. For most every service Google provides there is a domestic equivalent in China.
Yet the symbolic importance of Google's maneuver is significant. In particular, the idea that the spread of the internet will necessarily challenge the Communist Party's iron grip on power in China has come under further question. To borrow a phrase from the popular Chinese blogger Han Han, the People's Republic is in the process of creating the world's largest local area network (LAN). Beijing's efforts to manipulate the web are becoming more, not less, successful.
A second idea being challenged? That multi-national companies can operate with impunity in China. For years global firms have salivated over China's 1.3 billion-strong population and eye-catching GDP figures, imagining that what sells in Peoria might, too, in Xi'an. Yet Beijing has shown that any attempt to tamper with its desire to suppress dissent will not be tolerated.
I agree with John that acquiring a virtual private network (VPN) will before long become de rigeur for China's internet users. As I wrote over a year ago, I believe China's efforts to censor the web will only stop once everyone finds a cheap and easy way to work around the firewall.
As for me, paying 50 US dollars a year for unfettered Internet access is a small price to pay for a sense of personal freedom as well as a middle finger raised to the worst excesses of the Chinese nanny state.
Woman in Black: A Chinese Internet Tale
On November 16 US President Barack Obama held an American-style town hall meeting with a group of university students in Shanghai. During the event, the camera panned toward a pretty female student dressed stylishly in black who was seated near the president.
Naturally, the identity of this girl elicited the attention of the Chinese internet community, who immediately commenced a 'human flesh search'. Before long, the 'Obama girl' was identified as an MBA candidate named Wang Zifei at Shanghai's Jiaotong University. Like many of her peers she kept a blog in which he discussed her life and posted photographs of herself.
Following an intense period of attention and scrutiny Wang addressed the matter on her blog, stating that she made no special effort to attract attention during Obama's speech and that her celebrity- now international- was entirely accidental. To underscore her humble nature she highlighted a photograph of herself playing with a kangaroo. Just another pretty young Chinese woman lifted to fame, it seemed.
Or does it? Now ESWN presents information that Ms. Wang's sudden celebrity was in fact carefully premeditated. Apparently her boyfriend- a businessman- paid 100,000 RMB to a Beijing-based internet public relations firm to ensure her placement near Obama in order to jumpstart Wang's entertainment career. (link via Shanghaiist)
I'm still unconvinced. The dress Wang wore was flattering but in no way revealing or inappropriate for the occasion. She removed her coat slowly, yes, but she did not look at the camera or make any movements that could possibly be interpreted as seductive. Her denial struck me as more plausible than this incident, for example. It just seems unlikely to me that a public relations firm could have pulled that off.
We'll see how this plays out, I suppose. In the meantime I find it fascinating how quickly determined netizens uncovered her identity and how, if the ESWN-highlighted story is true, how savvy people are these days with using the internet as a self-promotion vehicle.
If a Twitterer Tweets a Tweet in a Forest….
The venerable China Daily has announced that our very own Yunnan Provincial Government has become the first in China to use Twitter, perhaps unaware of the irony that Twitter is tucked snugly behind the Great Firewall of China and is thus unavailable- without a proxy- to the general public.