Forum FAQ

Preferences

Watched Topics

Watched Forums

A Shining Model of Wealth Without Liberty

Shanghai Expat Forum Index » Community Discussion Forums » News and Opinion

Author

Message

tetrahedron
Seeker
Seeker

Joined: Sep 29, 2004
Posts: 66

Posted: June 21, 2007 - 09:50 AM
Post subject: A Shining Model of Wealth Without Liberty

By James Mann
Sunday, May 20, 2007;
Washington Post

The Iraq war isn't over, but one thing's already clear: China won.

As the United States has been bleeding popularity and influence around the world, China has been gaining both. That's largely because it has been coming into its own as the first full-blown alternative since the end of the Cold War to Washington's model of free markets and democracy. As the U.S. model has become tarnished, China's has gained new luster.

For authoritarian leaders around the world seeking to maintain their grip on power, China increasingly serves as a blueprint. We're used to thinking of China as an economic miracle, but it's also becoming a political model. Beijing has shown dictators that they don't have to choose between power and profit; they can have both. Today's China demonstrates that a regime can suppress organized opposition and need not establish its legitimacy through elections. It shows that a ruling party can maintain considerable control over information and the Internet without slowing economic growth. And it indicates that a nation's elite can be bought off with comfortable apartments, the chance to make money, and significant advances in personal, non-political freedoms (clothes, entertainment, sex, travel abroad).

This all adds up to a startling new challenge to the future of liberal democracy. And the result is ominous for the cause of freedom around the world. China's single-party state offers continuing hope not only to such largely isolated dictatorships as Burma, Zimbabwe, Syria and North Korea but also to some key U.S. friends who themselves resist calls for democracy (say, Egypt or Pakistan) and to our neighbors in Cuba and Venezuela.

The China model has emerged from the confluence of two independent developments over the past decade. Each stands on its own, yet the interaction between the two has been especially toxic for democratic values.

First has been the failure of U.S. foreign policy, symbolized above all by the war in Iraq. Over the past decade, U.S. foreign policy has been dominated by a school of thought that emphasizes military power and has tied the spread of democracy to the use of force. Not only has this failed, it has also undermined support for democracy. U.S. attempts to export free markets and political liberty by force have been unable to bring even security, much less prosperity, to Iraq. And they've eroded our appeal and clout worldwide.

The second key development has been the staying power and economic success of the Chinese Communist Party. In the years immediately after the crackdown on pro-democracy prοtesters around Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, Western pundits predicted that the Chinese government had one foot on a banana peel. Any day now, they said, it would fall or be forced to embrace far-reaching political reform to survive. Instead, China's economy expanded by a factor of nine, and the Communist Party remains firmly in control.

Westerners next seized on the Internet as the inevitable liberator of the Chinese. "Information will knock down the bamboo curtain!" went the refrain. Instead, Chinese cops in the 500 cities that have established Internet police bureaus are using the Web -- tapping into people's e-mail accounts and monitoring individuals using politically sensitive Web sites -- as a handy tool to stamp out dissent.

China's stability has belied the hopes and forecasts of Western leaders that growing prosperity would significantly alter the country's one-party political system. Over the past decade, presidents, prime ministers and others have frequently offered a soothing scenario about how China will inexorably move toward freedom and democracy. In 1997, President Bill Clinton said China was on "the wrong side of history." Political change would come "just as, inevitably, the Berlin Wall fell," he predicted. President Bush has repeated many of these same themes: "Trade freely with China, and time is on our side," he once said. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said two years ago that he thought there was "an unstoppable momentum" toward democracy in China. Not quite.

The optimists assume that once a country becomes more affluent, its emerging middle class will press for democratic change. But in China, the middle class (itself still tiny as a proportion of the overall population) supports or at least goes along with the existing political order; after all, that order made it middle class in the first place. The ruling party allows urban elites the freedom to wear and buy what they want, to see the world, to have affairs, to invest and to profit mightily; in return, the elites don't challenge the Communist Party's hold on power. Moreover, China's new business community is hardly independent of the party; in effect, it is the party, linked to China's power structure through financial connections or family ties.

In economic terms, China doesn't fit into the standard model of a free-market system, either. American magazines and television programs have for years joyously proclaimed that China has "gone capitalist" -- a supposed sign (along with the proliferation of McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Starbucks) that the Chinese are becoming like us. In fact, the fast-growing economic system that China is developing is quite different from the American model -- a fact not lost on other countries. Yes, China has private firms and stock markets. But only a small portion of the stock of any given company is traded on the stock market; the majority is held by state-owned enterprises. Communist Party officials frequently retain a majority of the seats on boards of directors and keep veto power over personnel decisions. And when it comes to foreign businesses, the Chinese system has been so good at attracting outside investment and fueling economic growth that the German magazine Der Spiegel recently asked, "Does Communism Work After All?"

Of course, the Chinese model doesn't really work for, say, Burma; China is unique because of its sheer size and the allure of its massive markets, which no other country can match. Still, repressive regimes elsewhere are increasingly looking to Beijing. And often the sympathy flows both ways: China has, in recent years, helped to prop up Zimbabwe, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Cuba and North Korea.

So what can U.S. leaders do to turn things around? The most important change is a conceptual one. We need to get beyond the arid framework of seeing every policy dispute involving China as a choice between "engagement" and "isolation." Those loaded words set up a false selection and have little meaning anymore, if they ever did. With the third-biggest trading economy in the world, China is already engaged.

We also need to get beyond the notion that our trade, investment and interaction with China are going to transform its political system. Any serious policy must be based on China as it is, not on our mistaken assumption that prosperity and liberty inevitably go hand in hand. Trade and investment should be evaluated for their economic costs and benefits to the United States, not for their political impact on China.

Take, for example, the economic meetings coming up this week between Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi. China has maintained its currency, the yuan, at a value so cheap that the U.S. trade deficit with China has soared to more than $200 billion a year. The result has been to boost Chinese exports and depress U.S. employment and production. But some American officials are concerned that pressing China too much on this issue might spoil U.S.-China ties. I don't think so.

Above all, we should approach China through the lens of our national interest. That includes not just security and prosperity but our interest in a world with open political systems and the freedom to dissent. If we don't take China's new model as seriously as the rest of the world does, we could find that we're the ones on the wrong side of history.

jmresponses@comcast.net

James Mann, author in residence at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies,
is author of "The China Fantasy."

hc
Post Roaster

Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545

Posted: June 21, 2007 - 10:50 AM

"That's largely because it has been coming into its own as the first full-blown alternative since the end of the Cold War to Washington's model of free markets and democracy."

HAHAHAHHAHA. Free markets right? Sure, keep dreaming. Go ask Vietnamese shrimp growers how "free" the markets in the US are.

Just like 300 ago, the idea has been the same all over: you open yourself first and then we will pick what you can sell us.

Democracy?

Allende anyone? Timor Leste?

Is this article a joke?

Come on, this comes from The Onion right?

"Take, for example, the economic meetings coming up this week between Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi. China has maintained its currency, the yuan, at a value so cheap that the U.S. trade deficit with China has soared to more than $200 billion a year. The result has been to boost Chinese exports and depress U.S. employment and production."

That goes against any economic theory of specialization and the addition of value. That goes against the opinion of some pretty big heavy weight economic analysts. But they keep repeating it and blaming it on China.

Kiwi, your words please?

And yes I do agree that China is granting exactly what the article says: keep them in power AND give them economic development. I just think that say that this is the opposite of what the US has done and is very hypocritical, or the author knows didly squat about the history of the cold war outside the borders of his country.

leidelaohu

Wonder Wit

Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 3725

Status: Offline

Posted: June 21, 2007 - 11:16 AM

Quote:

"China has maintained its currency, the yuan, at a value so cheap that the U.S. trade deficit with China has soared to more than $200 billion a year. The result has been to boost Chinese exports and depress U.S. employment and production."

That goes against any economic theory of specialization and the addition of value. That goes against the opinion of some pretty big heavy weight economic analysts. But they keep repeating it and blaming it on China.

It actually just demonstrates their idiocy.

First, let's move all the factories to China, land of cheap labor. RMB : $ = 8.3 : 1.

Now that so much of the goods sold in the US come from China, let's pressure China to change the exchange rate in their favour : now RMB : $$ = 7.8 : 1

Hey, that's working really good, it's giving China 10% more money for the same amount of work ! let's pressure them to accept even more. Let's *force* them to change the rate to 7:1 or even 5:1 !! And then we can make up the loss by selling them more "intellectual property" like movies !

Are those so-called 'economists' actually this dumb ? Or have they been so successful brainwashing the masses that they now believe their own swill ? Just exactly *what* American goods and services do they think they will sell to balance trade by changing the exchange rate ?

American leadership is really really stupid. I guess we already knew that tho - I mean, a country that seriously teaches Creationism ? And believes in it ?

warz

Raver

Joined: Apr 27, 2007
Posts: 451

Status: Offline

Posted: June 21, 2007 - 06:42 PM

leidelaohu wrote:

Quote:

It actually just demonstrates their idiocy.

First, let's move all the factories to China, land of cheap labor. RMB : $ = 8.3 : 1.

My father's company in Shanghai is going to double the output this year as its most important customer is going to shift all its manufacturing to China. That US company is going to cut hundreds of jobs in the US and this will of course create at least same number of jobs here in Shanghai. It is also safe to say my father's income is going to be doubled this year.

However, it is a BIG however, this is exactly the way how the US is damaging developing countries' environment. They shift all those **** to China and at the same time the US raise the issue of greenhouse gas emission.

Thanks a lot US, you pay for the cheap labor and we *only* need to pay for the greenhouse gas.

Quote:

Now that so much of the goods sold in the US come from China, let's pressure China to change the exchange rate in their favour : now RMB : $$ = 7.8 : 1

Your non-skilled workers have already lost their jobs due to the **** globalization and now they need to pay more $$$ for those daily cheap items from the **** slave owner Walmart.

Razz

Quote:

Hey, that's working really good, it's giving China 10% more money for the same amount of work ! let's pressure them to accept even more. Let's *force* them to change the rate to 7:1 or even 5:1 !! And then we can make up the loss by selling them more "intellectual property" like movies !

My concern is the 5:1 exchange rate is going to dramatically reduce your success rate of hooking up with those local gold diggers. Laughing

Quote:

Are those so-called 'economists' actually this dumb ? Or have they been so successful brainwashing the masses that they now believe their own swill ? Just exactly *what* American goods and services do they think they will sell to balance trade by changing the exchange rate ?

oh, there are a few things made in the US which are really really good and I am sure Chinese will be very happy to pay for the following goods and services:

1. Weapons. US made weapons are so widely used and proved, both domestically and internationally. In iraq alone, you know, all those weapons have been tested in REAL combat environment for at least 4 years and the results are simply amazing: more than 60,000 civilian death!

2. Democracy and justice. No matter whether it is right or totally evil, the US do it in a democratic way. Everyone in this world knows Bush is a monkey with his IQ estimated as less than 80, but this monkey can lead the Iraq war and this is called democracy! Then look at those POWs, they are detained in the Guantánamo Bay for years without being charged. Oh, yeah, you pay for the rent of the Guantánamo Bay, that is $4,000 a year for the whole bay! Maybe there is something wrong with Cuba's exchange rate, I mean the **** rent can just because Cuba has an underestimated exchanged rate?

LOL

Quote:

American leadership is really really stupid. I guess we already knew that tho - I mean, a country that seriously teaches Creationism ? And believes in it ?

So please fix your own problem first, your US don't need a monkey to lead your nation.