Clash of Civilizations

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.

 

                                  Peng Shuai

      

(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.)

Democracy vs. Bullshit at Home and Abroad

 A couple of weeks ago I got into a tiresome Twitter argument with a young woman from China over her government’s policies. She didn’t say how old she was, but I am assuming she is young because I have heard her arguments from many young Chinese, but not from older ones.

It started because I criticized Beijing’s claim that it was not suppressing the Uighur minority, but in fact was treating them very generously. Obvious bullshit, but Ms. Hyper-Nationalist wasn’t having any criticism. She accused me of not paying attention to what actual Chinese people have to say - unfair criticism given that I’ve spent much of my professional life studying and reading about modern China and talking to Chinese citizens. In fact, I lived for a total of about two and a half years in different Chinese cities: Hong Kong, Qingdao, and Beijing.

 

 

 

  Some of my fondly remembered Qingdao 

   University students in their dorm (1994)

 

 

What was most troubling about Ms. HN’s arguing was its imperviousness to any news or information that wasn’t approved by the Chinese government. In other words, she has drunk deeply of the Chinese Communist Party’s Kool-Aid and is a full-fledged member of the “China Shall Dominate the World” Cult. I use this insulting phrase with regret because, in fact, I am very fond of China, I admire its culture and I have had countless wonderful experiences with my Chinese friends. I hope these friends will understand my appreciation for them despite my contempt for the policies of the so-called Chinese Communist Party.

 

I say “so-called” Communist Party because the CCP is more fascist than communist. It is led by multi-millionaires who were only able to amass their fortunes after China introduced capitalism into its economy around 1979.* The CCP started describing its new economy back then by using a bullshit slogan to hide its capitalistic essence: “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

 

Right. And I suppose last week’s suppression of Hong Kong’s popular Apple Daily is “freedom of the press with CCP characteristics.”

 

The younger generation of Chinese is being raised on a cult-like diet of fanatic nationalism rooted in a sense of hurt feelings over China’s “century of humiliation.” It is true that western nations and the Japanese, starting in the 1800s, did invade and exploit China. In fact, these countries abused the Chinese very much as the Chinese are abusing the Tibetans and Uighurs today. Maybe someday leaders from these victimized minorities will rise up and denounce China for its decades of humiliation of them.

 

But I digress. What I want to say is that China’s late entry into the capitalist game has brought about a near miraculous economic expansion which has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty. Well done, China! But the CCP claims that its “communist” leadership made this miracle possible and demands the strictest loyalty to its dictates. Absolute and heavy-handed control of the press is the rule, with the result that an entire generation of Chinese has grown up believing the CCP’s bullshit message and itching for revenge against a world that caused its “century of humiliation.” Ms. Hyper-Nationalist is very typical of this generation. She is so thoroughly indoctrinated by her upbringing in an environment of thought control that she is incapable of clearly seeing the CCP lies that have victimized her. She has come to believe that western news sources are all “fake news.”

 

Yes, fake news. Which brings me to my final point: there is a lot of similarity between the Chinese Communist leader Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. Both are contemptuous of democracy, both rely heavily on outrageous lies to justify themselves, and both have created large cult-like followings that depend on their members rejecting outside sources of information and only believing the great leader.

 

I’m not alone in thinking this. A Twitter friend, Thomas the Traveler, who watched my back-and-forth with Ms. Hyper-Nat commented that it “Almost felt like an exchange between a Trumper and a normal person.” Exactly.

 

All of this means that we who believe in democracy now must fight on two fronts: internally the enemy of democracy is the Trump Cult, which lives on with the support of Fox News (or, as reporter Jim Acosta calls it, “the bullshit factory”) while internationally, the so-called Chinese Communist Party attempts to spread its authoritarian power outward, much as Imperial Japan did in the 1930s. And like Imperial Japan, the CCP insists that no citizen shall be allowed to challenge its self-adulating bullshit. Gird up, believers in democracy, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

 

 

 

 

 

*It’s not my intention to praise capitalism here, but only to grant that it was capitalism that has driven China’s new-found prosperity.

Hong Kong, China, Confucius, Mao, Lenin

I admire the protesters in Hong Kong. On the other hand, I have a great deal of affection for China - but I do not like China's authoritarian government. The Chinese Communist Party uses patriotism to whip up hostility in China against the Hong Kong protesters. Patriotism in itself is OK. There's nothing wrong with rooting for your own country. But look out for patriotism’s nasty little brother, tribalism. That’s where the trouble lies. Tribalism is patriotism made poisonous by self-righteous belligerence. You can find tribalism in every country. Trump’s dream of an anti-Mexican wall is an American example of it.

 Chinese tribalism, that version of it cultivated by the Chinese government, has helped provoke months of turmoil in Hong Kong. Another provocation, festering alongside this tribalism, is the Leninist authoritarianism practiced by the Chinese Communist Party.

 It is not easy for me to criticize China because I admire so much about that great country. Also, I have experienced countless wonderful moments in the company of my friends there. In fact, I’ve lived for a total of about two and a half years in Chinese communities, including one year in Hong Kong during the mid-1970s and another year in the People’s Republic of China in the 1990s when I was a visiting professor at Qingdao University. My time there has offered me rewards I will never forget and from which I continue to benefit.

 Before I began my visiting appointment at Qingdao University (1993-94), I anticipated seeing evidence of systematic oppression by China's communist government. But, to be honest, I can’t say strict authoritarianism was ever-present at the university. I did not witness a daily dose of Leninist heavy-handedness in the classroom or faculty offices. In fact, I was surprised at how little my Chinese colleagues cared about local party officials. My impression was that when they attended their compulsory weekly meetings with the CCP branch secretary, they listened with reluctant boredom to his edicts from Beijing. I was told they would often read the newspaper while he spoke.

 But I know I was watched closely in the classroom. I was especially watched by a student monitor who sat in the front row of my senior class whom I will call Comrade Hu (not her real name). She was clearly respected by her classmates, Her notes on my lectures – on American culture, English composition, and other topics – she, no doubt, faithfully turned over to party officials.

 One day, while lecturing, I mentioned in passing that Americans had mixed feelings about imperialism since our nation had been born in opposition to the British Empire. Several students took sincere but polite exception to this since, in accordance with CCP teaching, America was “a leading imperialist power.” I smiled, a little sheepishly and said something like this: “Well, true enough, we have our imperialist side, but then so does China. After all, the Tibetans  did not willingly choose to be part of China.”

 At this point, Comrade Hu wheeled around to face her classmates and said angrily, “That’s enough of this!”

 The students were clearly intimidated by her and, frankly, so was I, a little. It did not escape me that it was my words that provoked her furious outburst, even though she directed her venom at her classmates. I remembered then that Tibet was one of the topics I was cautioned not to discuss in the class, and, in fact, I never did raise that issue again. Chinese imperialism was not to be mentioned.

 When authorities suppress discussions on topics they consider politically uncomfortable or even threatening, democracy can not flourish. That's why Leninist authoritarianism is evil. China would be much better off if it were to acknowledge authoritarian's moral failings by taking down its portrait of Mao, which hangs over Tiananmen, and replacing it with a portrait of Confucius.
 
 Mao is problematic because he introduced the Leninist authoritarianism from which China has not yet been able to escape. I recognize that he was the very emblem of Chinese righteous pride when he stood above Tiananmen in October 1949 and declared, “The Chinese people have stood up!” That was a glorious moment for China, marking the end of 100 years of colonialism and civil war. Mao was dishonest, however, in claiming that he represented independence, while the Nationalists he had defeated represented continued colonialism. Mao, after all, was as much indebted to the Russians for their support as his Nationalist enemies were indebted to the Americans. This is a point the Chinese Communist Party insists on obscuring in order to strengthen its own claim to the moral high ground.

 Mao can also be criticized for dragging the Chinese economy through decades of communist doctrinaire programs which resulted in the deaths of at least 20 million citizens and which retarded China’s development for about 30 years. 

 Worst of all, is the ruthless suppression of freedoms that Mao instituted, the lingering effects of which triggered this year’s protests in Hong Kong.

 Hong Kong was formerly a British colony but, when it was turned over to China in 1997, London and Beijing reached an agreement that guaranteed a 50-year period of relative freedom for the Hong Kongers. Beijing has been undermining that agreement for years, and, finally, earlier this year, when it tried to impose a new law on extraditions further stifling free speech in the former colony, the Hong Kong protests began.

 Let me take a moment here to again express my admiration for the Hong Kong protesters. I understand that not everyone in Hong Kong supported them, and I realize that part of the motivation for the protests was a measure of unbecoming anti-Mainland-Chinese tribalism, but nevertheless, the essence of the movement was for democracy and its watchwords were courage and determination.

 Now the protesters, having forced Beijing to give up on its extradition bill, are demanding action on other issues, including attention to acts of police brutality and the freeing of jailed protesters. Even though they haven’t been granted everything they asked for, the dropping of the proposed extradition law has to be seen as a significant victory for them and for democracy itself.

 Which brings me to Confucius and those of his virtues I admire. Admittedly, the Great Sage’s philosophy has its drawbacks. For one thing, his ideas about male superiority, though normal for his era, make no sense in the modern world. Secondly, as a Han Chinese, he can’t properly represent Tibetans, Uighurs and other Chinese minorities. But I still admire him enough that I believe his portrait should replace Chairman Mao’s over Tiananmen, at least for this month during which his birthday falls. As a matter of fact, it might be a good thing if the Tibetans and other minorities were also to get a turn with portraits of their culture heroes over Tiananmen.

 But back to Confucius. The Sage believed that people are at their best in a society that promotes human decency, honesty, humility, conscientiousness, and respect for education. He also believed that in a world of rival nations, the country whose leaders encourage these virtues will ultimately triumph because people will be drawn to it in a way that undermines its less ethical rivals. One of his sayings is, “Government is good when it makes happy those who live under it and attracts those who live far away.” If Beijing’s leaders lived by this principle, they could easily avoid further trouble with Hong Kong and might even look forward to a peaceful reunification with Taiwan. 

But, of course, they won’t. The leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, and President Xi Jinping in particular, have one overriding idea and that is that they should remain in power indefinitely. Even though their bulging bank accounts show quite clearly that they are not really communists at heart, they still embrace the Leninist idea of secretive, one-party rule. And, as long as they do, China’s citizens will be subject to their government's self-serving propaganda and will find themselves unable to understand people, like those of Hong Kong, who live where the press is free.

I recall from the 1960s anti-Vietnam-War protest era a proclamation that went something like this: “The government treats us like mushrooms – it keeps us in the dark and feeds us shit.”

I look forward to the day when China’s Leninist leaders stop treating their people like mushrooms. The world then will be a much better place.

 Lou Fu Ji - A Favorite Memory from My Hong Kong Days