As a frequent traveller, I never thought I’m capable of making such a rookie mistake–being rejected to board my flight to Hamburg because it has a layover in Poland, a Schengen country as Germany, one day ahead of my visa entry date, even though I will arrive in Hamburg by the first day I am allowed to enter. Too bad. And I thought I should have known better.
This rather unfortunate sudden change of plan gave me some time to gather the thoughts lingering on my mind for a long time, and finally to have the chance to memorialize them.
Some Thoughts on China that Maybe Distasteful to the West and Mainstream Media
Three things regarding China most frequently mentioned by the Americans I met during the past few months, no matter they are students, lawyers, or politicians, are Xi’s heavy-handed anti-corruption campaign plus the persecution on criminal defense lawyers and dire human rights situation in general, sickening air pollution in major cities, and more “aggressive” foreign policy under Xi Administration.
Their comments are more like expression of disgruntles and dissatisfaction. Frustration towards China is prevalent among three branches of government. Convinced that the China will not trust the West no matter how much reassurance was provided, the West is on the verge of giving up engaging with China. Instead, more hostile measures ensued, including dismissive treatment of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), media lambaste on China’s reclamation of land on South China Sea, etc. During a talk with some officials in NSC, I realized they basically stop being optimistic on any improvement of Sino-US relation. Here I would like to offer some counterarguments for these biased and unnecessarily pessimistic perceptions without appearing to be beautifying Xi Administration in any way.
Obama is not even closer to a realist; his policies are grounded on idealism and the principles he deemed central for American national interests, as part of what he calls “smart power”. Kissinger during the interview with The National Interest admitted that Obama’s vision is “more ideological than strategic.” (Full interview is here.) Typically, South China Sea has been in dispute for decades; it only became salient recently because this Administration makes it so. Previously its more pragmatic predecessors decided to maintain the status quo and shifted focus on other fields without touching the unresolvable. Knowing that China will never concede on the title of its territory, Obama nevertheless decided to advance its agenda. This will barely change anything except for exacerbating the already shaking Sino-US relation, without even improving the interests of the U.S.. Giving up on South China Sea issue is perceived as opening the gate for further erosion of China’s territory, and the concept of land and boundaries has been entrenched in Chinese history for thousands of years. It bewilders me whether Obama and his policy advisors did not know it or choose so in any case. The mutual reassurance called for will be harder to gain on both sides. In the light of this, plus America’s non-engagement with AIIB, Xi is more convinced that reconciliation will only leave the impression to the world that everyone must follow the rules set by America, and hampers China’s leadership role in Asia. It’s hard to crack the rationale underlying Obama’s foreign policies other than ideology.
Human rights situation in China is characterized as abysmal–criminal defense lawyers were detained and charged, corrupted officials are arrested and convicted without due process. Admittedly, Chinese way to deal with criminal suspects is more draconian, and the system is not particularly transparent. Yet these enthusiasts and critics missed the other half of the story. If we look at the charges, they are not groundless–the probable cause exists, such as fabrication of evidence (as in Zhang Jianzhong‘s case), supported by testimony or other types of evidence. Advocates called the charges “questionable at best,” in fact, their doubt for such charges and their belief on the defendants’ innocence was equally questionable. It is not by default that whenever a David was facing a Goliath, David was on the righteous side. Everyone should refrain from jumping to the conclusion too fast before knowing the facts cold.
The anti-corruption campaign is viewed as Xi’s instrument to weed out dissents in the Party. Without denying the possibility of this interpretation, can’t it be an effort to make out a clean slate in the government before he could initiate any floor shaking policies that call for extensive support? Organic change in China is especially incremental, given the population of the poor, the rural residents and the less educated is extremely huge. Democracy’s magic in America cannot easily be transplanted in Chinese soil. Though a population does not have to be educated enough to engage in democratic life such as election, it is certainly the case that existence of democratic culture is a precondition. Yet what China needs right now is an effective and decisive government run by the group of people who are best informed of the effects of all types of governments, who have sufficient experience with the Chinese context and who have a vision for how China could be and should be in the long term. Yet the intricacy and impenetrability of the system stymied any reforms at the moment. Xi chose the way he deems most efficient: creation of deterrence. The heavy-handedness makes every official shiver, intimidating them into compliance or restraint. “Cherry pick” might be the case, yet I don’t see much harm identifying and picking the black sheep in the herd to discipline others. Point is that Xi’s measures should not be explained as simple as enriching his personal power. China is different from North Korea, it is a country aiming for a future and leadership, with a vision that is different from the current one. Simplifying an issue is deadly to understand a nation, its policy, and how it presents itself in the world.
I have been struggling with my own perception of the nation I’ve been living for ages. I endorse the idea of respect for human rights. I am among the people who want to improve the policies and restore a more sound and optimistic Sino-US relation. Despite of these, I keep reminding myself that one should not be over-zealous towards the big principles without setting it in context. We need counterarguments to think further and better. Principles and high moral grounds can blind our eyes.
To end my mumbling with a potent note, I would like to quote Kissinger who probably have a more in-depth view on China than most policy advisors in the U.S.. He says,
The way the debate is conventionally presented pits a group that believes in power as the determining element of international politics against idealists who believe that the values of society are decisive. Kennan, Acheson or any of the people you mentioned did not have such a simplistic view. The view of the various realists is that, in an analysis of foreign policy, you have to start with an assessment of the elements that are relevant to the situation. And obviously, values are included as an important element. The real debate is over relative priority and balance. (emphasis added)