On his show last night, Bill Maher had a mini-debate with Fareed Zakaria about the China-US rivalry. Both agreed, as I do, that this relationship is the most important one of the mid-twenty-first-century. Beyond that, Maher claimed that he expected China would out-compete the US because of its impressive record in constructing such things as high-speed rail systems. Zakaria argued that the US has some important advantages, including an open society with lots of talented incoming immigrants and a strong network of international relationships. China’s population, on the other hand, is set to decrease, and its only international treaty is with North Korea. I’m inclined to agree with Zakaria in this debate.
At one point Maher suggested that the US could be like Britain, a country that accepted second place after the US overtook it in political and economic influence. Well, sure, why not. Except that I see the China-US rivalry not as country vs. country but as ideology vs. ideology. The real contest is between authoritarianism and democracy. I’m hoping for a victory by democracy in this clash, and I wouldn’t mind if China were to become democratic and then suddenly outpace the US on every front. Unfortunately, current indications are that democracy is not in the cards for China.
President Xi Jinping is pushing hard to tighten authoritarian controls and in doing this is reversing that China’s recent liberalizing trends. Furthermore, his aggressive stance abroad has pissed off (Zakaria’s words) Japan, India, Vietnam, and other Asian neighbors with its new concept of itself as a “Wolf Warrior.” China’s Wolf Warrior ideal, widespread today in films and popular culture, is like a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude that you’d expect from an adolescent with wounded pride, not from a great nation. It’s kind of like Sylvester Stallone’s Rambo series with its ethos of hurt feelings. Of course, American militarism is a problem of its own, but one I won’t deal with here beyond acknowledging its existence.
The emergence of China’s Wolf Warrior spirit is not too surprising given that the Communist government has long promoted a national myth-history that focuses on China’s wounded pride from “a century of humiliation” at the hands of the western powers and the Japanese. The past bullying by westerners and the Japanese is real, but the promotion of a sense of hurt feelings over this past is kind of pathetic. It’s obviously part of the Communist authority’s effort to control the thinking of its citizens. By making people feel victimized about past bullying and at the same time promoting the idea that the Chinese Communist Party represents the essence China, the leaders are able to twist criticism of its policies into criticism of China itself. In this way they tap into the wounded pride ethos and stir up popular resentment against criticism of the party.
The Chinese Communist Party has been stoking resentment over China’s past for 70 years now and through this resentment has cultivated an attitude of nationalistic belligerence. It’s a belligerence that the government sometimes finds hard to control and could eventually push Chinese leaders into confrontations that are dangerously provocative to the US or to its Asian neighbors. China’s insistence on absorbing Taiwan into its authoritarian orbit - by violent force if they deem it necessary - is one area in particular where danger lies.
China
would be so much better off if it were to reject the Leninist idea of party thought-control and reach instead into its own deep roots for a sense
of identity. According to a longstanding Confucian ideal, good rulers strive to gain followers
and influence through wisdom and benevolence. Grabbing territory by military conquest was regarded as immoral. Following a Confucian path, the People’s
Republic of China (PRC) could, without military threat, draw Taiwan so powerfully into its orbit that the issue
of violent reunification would seem pointless, even downright idiotic. It
wouldn’t be hard, if the PRC were only willing to open its society to a free
press, guaranteed freedom of expression generally, and transparency in
governance. Such a transformation would enable the government to act with
confidence and benevolence on the world stage.The people of Taiwan already enjoy democratic freedoms, why does Beijing pretend that the Chinese people can’t be allowed the same?
Xi Jinping is no fan of an open or transparent society. One indication of Mainland China’s stifling restrictions is the recent disappearance of tennis star Peng Shuai. About three weeks ago, Ms. Peng posted on social media an accusation of sexual harassment by a government official. Her post was quickly taken down. Following this came further notices claiming to be hers which denied the original accusation and insisted that she was doing fine. I don’t believe she is, and neither does the world of women’s tennis. One short, simple gesture indicating that it respects its own deeply rooted Confucian morality would be for the Chinese government to allow Ms. Peng to travel internationally and be interviewed by those who are concerned about her fate. The fact that this is not happening is a measure of the Chinese government’s lack of self-confidence. The world would be a much better place if the U.S. were to restrain its global militarism and China were to open its society to free expression and thereby assume an honored place in the international community of like-minded nations.
(By the way, here’s a plug for Fareed, who is presenting a special on CNN Sunday evening: China's Iron Fist: Xi Jinping and the Stakes for America.)
