James Mann's New Book
James Mann had recently written a new book The China Fantasy - How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression.
One of the most interesting books I have read recently!
And much as I hate to admit this, instead of buying the book, I actually read it in a Borders bookshop. For one, it's less than 120-pages, and besides, I had loads of time. I swear I had never done this in my entire life, unless you include the times when I was a kid where I read comic books in the neighborhood bookshop.
Anyway, as the title of the book suggests, the gist of Mann's argument was that the American elites have been deluding themselves into believing that democracy would come inexorably to China. These elites believed that China should be engaged, should not be offended, and that Americans should continue to do business with the country.
These U.S. elites also believed that greater economic opportunities and liberalizations will eventually lead China to democracy, and hence little should be done in the meantime to rock the boat. This is what Mann termed the "soothing scenario".
Then there are others (mainly the non-U.S. elites) who believed in what Mann called the "upheaval scenario". This is the belief that China is headed for collapse and catastrophe, and the standard bearer of such a belief would most certainly be Gordon Chang who predicted such a scenario a few years ago in his book The Coming Collapse of China.
Then there is what Mann termed the "third scenario" where China continues to grow economically but remains politically repressive.
So why is the "third scenario" worrisome for the U.S.? Reasons cited by Mann include:
1) People everywhere deserve democracy, and so do the Chinese who constitute the bulk of the world's population.
2) An undemocratic political system is inherently unstable.
3) It will allow China to continue to support rogue regimes like those in Burma and Zimbabwe, and hence undermine America's efforts at democracy.
4) Most importantly, Americans have been sold the "false promise" that trade and engagement with China will change its political system.
Turning to the various ways that the U.S. elites had undertaken not to provoke and offend China, and as if the latter is a moody teenager subjected to extreme and unpredictable mood swings, Mann outlined the deferral language used by the U.S. elites.
One of the most interesting books I have read recently!
And much as I hate to admit this, instead of buying the book, I actually read it in a Borders bookshop. For one, it's less than 120-pages, and besides, I had loads of time. I swear I had never done this in my entire life, unless you include the times when I was a kid where I read comic books in the neighborhood bookshop.
Anyway, as the title of the book suggests, the gist of Mann's argument was that the American elites have been deluding themselves into believing that democracy would come inexorably to China. These elites believed that China should be engaged, should not be offended, and that Americans should continue to do business with the country.
These U.S. elites also believed that greater economic opportunities and liberalizations will eventually lead China to democracy, and hence little should be done in the meantime to rock the boat. This is what Mann termed the "soothing scenario".
Then there are others (mainly the non-U.S. elites) who believed in what Mann called the "upheaval scenario". This is the belief that China is headed for collapse and catastrophe, and the standard bearer of such a belief would most certainly be Gordon Chang who predicted such a scenario a few years ago in his book The Coming Collapse of China.
Then there is what Mann termed the "third scenario" where China continues to grow economically but remains politically repressive.
So why is the "third scenario" worrisome for the U.S.? Reasons cited by Mann include:
1) People everywhere deserve democracy, and so do the Chinese who constitute the bulk of the world's population.
2) An undemocratic political system is inherently unstable.
3) It will allow China to continue to support rogue regimes like those in Burma and Zimbabwe, and hence undermine America's efforts at democracy.
4) Most importantly, Americans have been sold the "false promise" that trade and engagement with China will change its political system.
Turning to the various ways that the U.S. elites had undertaken not to provoke and offend China, and as if the latter is a moody teenager subjected to extreme and unpredictable mood swings, Mann outlined the deferral language used by the U.S. elites.
Known as "the lexicon of dismissal", it includes words and expressions such as:
- Anti-China - people who suggest that China should be held to higher human rights standards are described as such.
- China bashing - people who negatively comment on China are described as such.
- Push the envelope - people who needlessly provoke China are described as such, most notably Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian (陈水扁).
- Chinese people do not care about democracy - to justify why the U.S. should not be too hardline about pushing for democracy in China.
Mann also suggested that China's increasingly growing middle-class does not necessarily want to elect their national leaders. He noted that the middle-class might prefer the status-quo as 1) they had benefited from the status-quo and 2) constitute only a small proportion of the population vis-a-vis their rural counterparts.
Mann also questioned whether a fall from power for the Chinese Communist Party would necessarily result in democracy. Not so, he reckoned, as it might result in authoritarianism.
Other interesting insights:
- The United States has profited from a Chinese system that permits no political opposition, and for now is content with it.
- China has mainly relied on the "P-factor" to ensure that Sino-U.S. relations are on the right track, or at least on a track favorable to China. The P here means "President". Well, most American presidents were voted to office on an anti-China rhetoric, but eventually turn out to either embrace China or even suggest that relations with the Asian giant constituted a "strategic partnership".
- Strategic means "too important for every-day details"
- All human rights in China are measured against the "rock bottom misery of the Cultural Revolution"
- China need not do anything, as its economic growth will lead naturally and inexorably to liberal political change. How so, a skeptical Mann asked. (In my words, it'd be "how so? Unless a fairy godmother waves a magic wand.")
- Mann also asked if the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games will resemble the 1936 Berlin Olympics which witnessed the rise of "an ugly new era of assertiveness and intolerance". He predicted that 2008 could resemble the situation in 1989 where the presence of a huge international media might lead to political demonstrations and the disinclination of the authorities to readily resort to force. Mann also predicted that prior to the Games, there will be a period of tolerance for political dissent and opposition.
- In the case of China, the mistake lies in the assumption that change is coming. Hey, the whole paradigm may turn out to be wrong
- It sounded as if the US is a an experienced yet weary trainer bringing China to a "diplomatic version of obedience school." But the question that needs to be asked is - just who is integrating who?
- Anti-China - people who suggest that China should be held to higher human rights standards are described as such.
- China bashing - people who negatively comment on China are described as such.
- Push the envelope - people who needlessly provoke China are described as such, most notably Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian (陈水扁).
- Chinese people do not care about democracy - to justify why the U.S. should not be too hardline about pushing for democracy in China.
Mann also suggested that China's increasingly growing middle-class does not necessarily want to elect their national leaders. He noted that the middle-class might prefer the status-quo as 1) they had benefited from the status-quo and 2) constitute only a small proportion of the population vis-a-vis their rural counterparts.
Mann also questioned whether a fall from power for the Chinese Communist Party would necessarily result in democracy. Not so, he reckoned, as it might result in authoritarianism.
Other interesting insights:
- The United States has profited from a Chinese system that permits no political opposition, and for now is content with it.
- China has mainly relied on the "P-factor" to ensure that Sino-U.S. relations are on the right track, or at least on a track favorable to China. The P here means "President". Well, most American presidents were voted to office on an anti-China rhetoric, but eventually turn out to either embrace China or even suggest that relations with the Asian giant constituted a "strategic partnership".
- Strategic means "too important for every-day details"
- All human rights in China are measured against the "rock bottom misery of the Cultural Revolution"
- China need not do anything, as its economic growth will lead naturally and inexorably to liberal political change. How so, a skeptical Mann asked. (In my words, it'd be "how so? Unless a fairy godmother waves a magic wand.")
- Mann also asked if the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games will resemble the 1936 Berlin Olympics which witnessed the rise of "an ugly new era of assertiveness and intolerance". He predicted that 2008 could resemble the situation in 1989 where the presence of a huge international media might lead to political demonstrations and the disinclination of the authorities to readily resort to force. Mann also predicted that prior to the Games, there will be a period of tolerance for political dissent and opposition.
- In the case of China, the mistake lies in the assumption that change is coming. Hey, the whole paradigm may turn out to be wrong
- It sounded as if the US is a an experienced yet weary trainer bringing China to a "diplomatic version of obedience school." But the question that needs to be asked is - just who is integrating who?
posted by Maria Siow @ 4:23 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home