Nearly two decades after the Tiananmen Square clampdown, China remains a tightly controlled state ruled by the Communist Party. But just how repressive is the Middle Kingdom today, and is it becoming any more free as it grows in economic clout? Veteran reporter James Mann has his doubts—and his controversial new book accuses U.S. leaders and prominent scholars like David M. Lampton of peddling unduly optimistic assumptions about China’s rise. In this often heated FP debate, Lampton and Mann go toe-to-toe on the uncertain political future of the world’s most populous country.
Although the two scholars delve somewhat into pettiness over assertions, both make interesting points.
David M. Lampton points out-
Over the last nearly 40 years, a few scholars of the Middle Kingdom have been involved at senior levels of Washington’s policy process. But that substantially changed when the George W. Bush administration first came into office. Expertise on Japan was promoted and the so-called China expert community was largely frozen out. To the degree that there was outside China expertise, it was more oriented toward Taiwan than the mainland. In the permanent government bureaucracy, there have been skilled experts on China all along, but China hawks like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz were listening to the advice they wanted to hear rather than those who counseled against confrontation.
Cheney and the Neocons would be a poor choice to use as skilled experts on anything, much less, China. China does consider itself at war with us, but will only attack below the surface.
In the globalized world, economy and finances creates a bigger punch than military might. With the Chinese and US economies so closely tied-how could they ever get into a shooting war. I've always wondered how many parts on the F-22-which was built for the "inevitable war with China" and how much of the F-22 fleet is financed through debt held by China. WWII isn't going to happen again, yet the Air Force and other hawks "know its coming."
China will attack through financial attacks. Much like the US threatened the UK during the Suez Canal crisis under Eisenhower, China could threaten the US because of all the US debt China owns.
James Mann asserts-
Two decades later, the influence of Taiwan money in Washington is dwarfed by the far larger sums being spent by U.S. multinational corporations that are doing business with or in the People’s Republic of China (and, in some instances, transferring jobs to the PRC). Yet now, China scholars no longer seem to complain so much about how money influences U.S. debates about China.
Yes, the almighty dollar is king. The US is not about to sell out the US economy for humanity in China. Sell out the US economy is the quickest way to lose and election. And remember job one of every politician is to get elected. If a politician doesn't get elected, how is he going to do all the good he plans on doing? Oh, and paying back everyone who paid for him to get elected.
Which is ironic when discussing how repressive China is. The US isn't too different when it comes to politics, there are only a certain few who would ever be considered for office and they will either have money or be backed (bought) by big money.
Lampton responds-
The truth is, U.S. policy toward the People’s Republic of China has never been predicated on a false belief that China would move toward democracy soon, if it all. Seven consecutive U.S. presidents, backed by Congress and the American public, have weighed their options and decided that security and economic considerations rank above promoting Chinese democracy in the priority list.
Pragmatism rules the day. We needed China in the beginning for leverage against the Soviet Union, as Mann will point out eventually, but then the US became dependent on economic interests in China.
Mann concludes-
The first four of those presidents won congressional and public backing because the United States wanted China’s cooperation against the Soviet Union. That indeed amounted to downplaying Chinese repression beneath the other interests of national security and combating Soviet repression. But after the Tiananmen Square massacre and the end of the Cold War, the dynamics changed. Since then, U.S. leaders have obtained congressional and public support by making the claim that their policies, especially on trade and investment, would help bring political change to China. Contrary
Again, what Mann naively misses, is that the welfare of other nations is only in the best interest of US politicians if it will get them re-elected. Look at Mexico and the inequalities there. Is the US doing everything it can to help Mexico build its middle class? No, it's not doing everything it can. Yes, there was NAFTA. But even if the US tried, it doesn't mean American efforts will make a dent in problems. Since this is a civil conversation, let's not bring up Iraq and how we're helping there. But for Mexico, ultimately, we're going to build a fence so the "problem" stays in Mexico.
With this kind of reasoning, does it really matter whether China is free or not to American politicians? Nope.
My deepest gratitude goes out to
Olivia Cooper of Darfur: An Unforgivable Hell on Earth, for bringing this heated debate to my attention.
Technorati Tags:
China,
Free Trade,
Communism,
Mexico,
Immigration,
Illegal Immigration,
Soviet Union,
Cold War,
