Newsweek is running a long article about what many are calling an impending “clash of wills” between the US and China. The authors certainly give plenty of examples, but Polimom was struck more by the similarities. For instance:
… While Bush has spent the past five years fighting global terrorism, promoting the idea of democracy and threatening to topple oppressive despots, the unelected Hu has set a more pragmatic—some might say amoral—course for China’s foreign policy. In places where Beijing has sought to lock up natural resources, in particular oil, that’s meant China has adopted the role of kind uncle for many of the same rogue regimes that Bush loathes.
A kind uncle to rogue regimes? Why, the US has never adopted unruly nephews, has it? Noriega and Hussein were never friends to the US …right?
It appears to me that China is operating under the principles the US followed for decades, right up until 9-11 authorized a change in agenda. China is described variously as “amoral” and “morally neutral” throughout the article, but it remains pretty obvious that the biggest gap is the Chinese aren’t interested in a Global Democratic System – or any other “Global” system of government, for that matter.
Basically, they are following a “noninterference” policy, and as a result, they’re willing to do business and trade with anybody who has money. Given their huge need for oil, it makes the situation in Iran more understandable (although not necessarily helpful for the US, and others who are more than a little uncomfortable at the thought of a nuclear Iran – a group which includes me):
Iran is perhaps the pre-eminent example of China’s amoral pragmatism butting up against Washington’s “freedom agenda.” The Bush administration by its nature sees Iran as an “evil” regime. Beijing, long a scourge of human-rights advocates itself, views Iran mostly as a source for petroleum and natural gas, and has signed nearly $100 billion worth of energy deals with the country.
Bottom line: they don’t feel any obligation to support sanctions against one of their trade partners, because they’re not concerned about corrupt governments or rogue regimes.
Polimom finds this fascinating, not least because prior to five years ago, that’s pretty much how the US did business, too. We’ve “bedded down” with any number of people who later became problems too big to ignore.
Since 9-11 and the war on terrorism, of course, we can’t afford to do that anymore, but the reasons for that aren’t morally superior. As we all know, and Iraq demonstrated, many folks had been chafing to carry the banner of Americanism to the rest of the world for decades. However, had those planes not flown that day, Polimom thinks we’d still be blithely picking and choosing our allies in the childlike, economically carefree way the newly-emerging China is doing.
I think I envy them their naiveté.
Of course China doesn’t have to worry about kowtowing corrupt governments because they themselves are corrupt. Since they seized power, the Chinse Communists have used the tactics of fear, intimidation and censorship to impose its will on a people that never accepted it. Hu Jintao, like his predecesors, is not afraid to send in troops to kill a group of poor farmers demanding they stay on their land. He’s not afraid to have missiles pointed at democratic Taiwan to keep them from breaking free. And he’s willing to prop up rogue, terrorist supporting regimes like Iran to become rich without reform.
The Chinese that they’re doing things the U.S. and the free world dislikes, and they don’t care. Don’t kid yourself, the Chinese are not naive, they’re EVIL! I hope the social unrest in China continues and that they continue to expose the Commies’ corruption. For they will bring China into the rest of the world of freedom and democracy.
Wow, an entire system *evil*? I certainly hope that those who are activists within the system don’t hear that! (I’ll have to dig up an impressive article on a Uighur activist politician who now resides in the US.) Does that mean that the elected officials at the rural/village levels are also evil?
Fact is that those in the city — those who could do the most harm — don’t concern themselves with the government until their housing is torn down and they’re forced to move to another part of the city. The level of political consciousness here is disgusting. People are more concerned their paychecks and only politically care about the hot topics that the government tells them to care about by publishing them in the papers — Japanese officials visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, social unrest in Europe, etc. — than internal problems. Ask about the FLG crackdown and they will reply that all FLG practionners are crazy cult members. Ask about the cultural genocide of Tibet and they’ll reply that it’s always been Chinese and needs to modernize. Ask about the unrest in Xinjiang/East Turzekistan and they’ll reply that the Uighurs are all terrorists, drug traffickers, and/or theives. Ask about rural unrest and they’ll reply that peasants are unfortunate, but better off than they used to be. The CCP/media, of course, keep people’s eyes turned to international “evils” like Japan in attempt to turn their thoughts away from internal strife — this is, of course, why protests against the CCP are quickly stopped whereas those against the Japanese are allowed to rally on endlessly.
Of course, if you ask the average city-dwelling Chinese, they’ll freely admit that their government is corrupt. (“Of course,” they’ll harp, “So is yours. At least we didn’t elect ours.”) But as long as they’re economically well off, they’ll be happy. Let China’s bubble burst and the middle class be unable to pay their bills and you’ll begin to see more unrest.
I’m sorry, I should correct myself. Rebiya Kadeer wasn’t a politician, but a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and the Xinjiang Chamber of Commerce.