For those who have been following my last few posts on culture and the debates that have ensued on their comments pages, I am sorry to say that I am going to change tracks a bit, at least for now. There are a few political issues I would like to discuss. However, I promise I will eventually return to the topics of culture and cultural manipulation, as they are far to important for me to only write about one or twice.
I recently read an article on the BBC News website about how China’s anti-democracy stance will affect the 21st century. The article cites Lord Chris Patten, a famous British ex-politician, who stated in his new book, “China is a threat to democracy.” According to Patten, this is because China has not taken a hard line on humanitarian issues in neighboring countries such as Myanmar. Because of this, says Patten, China sends the message to other nations that it is acceptable to be “authoritarian, illiberal, proto-capitalism.”
I have to agree with Patten’s thesis. Asia has no binding contracts between nations the way the EU has, so if China does not force other Asian nations to protect human rights, nothing will change. Though the Chinese hold a supercilious attitude towards the nations surrounding it, they do little to help these nations. China’s imperialism also worries me—China have been gradually forcing its will on cultural groups that are entirely unrelated to Han China, including Tibet and Qinghai. If this troubling pattern continues, China may re-emerge as a conquering empire. Also, I think that the Chinese relationship with the government of Sudan will continue to be a serious political issue in the years to come.
What can we do about it? Unfortunately, very little. Usurping the Chinese government is not an option, since globalization demands that the Chinese government and economy must remain stable. (Also, there are some moral issues with this, of course.) Nor will acting sycophant towards the Chinese make them listen to us any more than they do now. What we must do instead is take a hard line with China, and have the UN impose sanctions on them if necessary. Since China is most likely going to be the most powerful nation in the world in a decade or two, now is the time to get them on the right track. Indeed, this parvenu of a nation must be sent on the road to democracy, or else all the US has been working for will be lost.
13 comments:
I tend to agree with you. China becoming the most powerful nation in the world within 20 years is scary, yet likely (unfortunately).
Quite scary indeed.
bill, I am in (near) total agreement with you. a hard stance must be taken on China immediately in order to insure that this does not become a larger problem further down the road.
China's evolution will have a massive effect on the future of the world. how they react to democracy will most likely influence most of the rest of the world (over time). if we cannot start encouraging (forcing) them to take a higher moral stance and take a greater interest in the human rights issues to be found in their neighboring countries, it does not bode well for the future.
therefore, since there are few points I can bring up that differ from yours, I will offer three solutions. two of them are absurd.
1. We must take immediate action. The UN must become even more involved in China's affairs, and to start requiring some gradual move towards a much more democratic government. While I am against their interference, and I'm sure is as well, it is necessary if we are to avoid...
2. Every other country should gang up on China. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful country in the world If they cannot be swayed peacefully, we may risk the spread of any anti-democratic ideals they have through both peaceful and military imperialism. United military action, assuming a Chinese defeat, would theoretically squash the center of any anti-democratic feelings. However, further action would be necessary.
3. Extra-terrestrial beings would come to Earth, assuming their existence. If they have the technology required to even reach Earth, they most likely have the technological capability to take over the globe (if they so desire).
Lastly, I would like to point out my response, Steve's response, and even part of your response. Look at how worried we are. We are demonstrating a stereotypical American mindset: we must be in power. While it is understandable, it is simply interesting to observe how concerned we are about giving up that power.
#2 is not as absurd as you think; it is very much related to #1. However, I doubt that nations such India, Pakistan, or Myanmar would join in this coalition to reform China, but there would be a large enough number of Western nations--the US, the EU, and others--to influence Chinese policy. #3 is a bit absurd--but it is always a possibility.
As for your last paragraph--I agree, fear is the typical American reaction when we are told we will no be supreme for long. However, it is also the fact that China represents the opposite ideology that the US does--we have always had a (misplaced) hatred of communism, and the thought that an centralized, communist nation will be on top in a few years is more than some Americans can bear to hear.
Hey guys, just popping in, Brett showed me some of your posts and I was extremely intrigued by them. Brett, I feel that your first solution could have great potential to succeed only if it is done through the least confrontational means. If you were able to gather enough countries and form a sort of coalition to put great economic pressure on the Chinese I think they would be more than compliant to take a higher moral stance. Although this may be seen as bullying, which is in its self immoral, it is necessary to stop the Chinese before they become way too powerful and immune to the pressures of the global society.
Secondly, although the second option Brett has proposed isn't a very farfetched idea it would not be a wise decision. As Billy said this coalition would not be comprised of countries in the area, but rather western nations. This would be a very bad "publicity stunt" (for lack of a better description), for the western nations (mainly the U.S.) who are already hated by many of the eastern nations. This is a hatred built up by many ulterior motives and the imperialistic behavior the US has shown in its history.
And finally for the typical american response I could not agree with both of you two more. We americans have a great bravado about us; we do not like to feel inferior to anyone. You could almost say we have a superiority complex, and that we have always felt above or better than the majority of the world. This stems as far back as the "white mans burden," which stated that is was our job to protect our "little brown brothers," which depicted the Africans as uncivilized immoral without the help of the United States. US citizens have always prided themselves in being one of the most powerful nations in the world. Americans are afraid to accept that they could potentially be inferior to a communist nation. I am pretty sure that there would not be as much concern (of the US becoming inferior to China) if China was not a communist nation.
bill, I am definitely in agreement with your statement on Americans and their view of communism. when people referred to Obama was a communist leading up to and shortly after the election, it was often immediately linked to communism in Russia rather than the concept itself. I feel people often misconstrue it as an immediate reference to Russia, and disregard the true meaning of the word.
karl, I think you brought up an extremely valuable point. Western presence in the East is far from what you could call "invited". regardless of which way we choose to go about this, we must be careful not to inspire too much resentment. this could hurt us in the future, and any wrong move we make can be used against us.
clearly we have to sabotage their economy. then everybody will be doing worse and they'll rebel!
I think it depends on how the western coalition tries to persuade China to respect human rights. Right now, European countries are trying to get China to improve the situation in Darfur (to which China is linked because China buys oil from the Sudanese government). However, because they are simply asking the Chinese, rather than threatening them, little is happening. If western nations, including the US, were to threaten China with an embargo, they would probably be more likely to listen.
Also, it may depend on whether China becomes more liberal in the future. Though the government is very anti-American and anti-democracy, the Chinese people might push for reform if the government begins to weaken or push for reform. (This is evident in protests by university students and other Chinese reform groups.)
As for Brett....I don't think sabotaging the Chinese economy is wise. We depend on them economically, and hurting their economy will have severe effects on our own. Because of this, we need to keep the country and the government stable to keep the markets open. Also, we do not want China in chaos for political reasons: if the government fails, who is going to intervene and help out in China? Not the UN--they are the most non-committal organization in the world. Not the EU--they are against that sort of thing. The US? Maybe. But it would cost many American lives and would probably hurt our economy as well, which is very undesirable.
And as for American anti-communism....remember that it comes from over 50 years of government-sponsored anti-communist propaganda. Because of this, It should be no suprise to any of us.
One of the major vices of the american people is that the vast majority of them are ignorant. They choose not to learn and truly understand what they do not like; they just accept it for what it is and never know the real meaning. There are plenty of other examples of this throughout history however, communism is probably the best example. Communism is not such a bad thing, Americans fear it basically because what Bill had stated with the 50 years of anti-communist propaganda and they CHOOSE not to learn and comprehend it.
Communism in its purest form is actually one of the best possible things a country could do. However communism would be a great form for a utopia where all humans can be trusted. This is not the case and it is human nature to be competitive and want more and be better then one's neighbors. This is a sad yet true fact and that is why the capitalistic form has taken to most of the world.
The only true example of communism that can be cited is the Indians. Everyone worked together for the greater good and survival of the people. The USSR was not a real form of communism and neither is China. You can not have communism and still have a government. There is no reason for government to exist in real communism. I just would like to know what you guys think: Is communism really such a bad thing? Obviously you can know how I feel on this topic from my previous statements, but how do you guys feel?
let me rephrase the CHOOSE part, they don't exactly choose, however remain blissfully unaware
and for my statement on the USSR, Russia's communism was never fully implemented. That is the main reason why it is not communism, as I discussed with Brett.
bill-my "sabotage the economy" statement was a joke. it would have global repercussions.
perhaps a problem is that too long the U.S. has been one of the most proactive countries in situations like this, and as a result, we often take the blame. if we want to convince the rest of the world that action is necessary, then we must attempt some form of isolation and focus solely on strengthening our own nation rather than helping other countries. while it ignores the human rights issues that we are trying to fix, maybe if we stepped down for a bit it would force other countries to act, and we would (hopefully) be prepared should they fail. then again, if they fail, we may not be able to protect ourselves either.
karl-I agree with much of what you said. it's unfortunate that Communism may never be successfully implicated on a large scale. what most likely helped the Indians (we're assuming they lived in a near completely Communistic society) is that they were on a smaller scale, and those who might cause trouble weren't apart of the community.
and I'm not sure if I'm correct, but I believe that a government is one of the steps on the way to Communism; in the final step, the government is removed. therefore, like you said, it never reached its final stage.
Karl--Of course communism is not a bad thing. But throughout history its execution in the Western world has been atrocious, so it has a very bad reputation. However, the one problem with it is that it does create a situation that makes it very easy for a small faction to take power. But that said, I have no qualms with it overall.
Brett--Sorry about the misinterpretation; I suppose I should have realized that was a joke. However, don;t laugh too soon--I bet there are some people who would be willing to sabotage the Chinese economy, probably some narrow-minded, anti-communist neo-con.
its all good.
Post a Comment