China's authoritarian government regularly and systematically ignores universally recognized rights. It is beyond dispute that the Communist Party detains individuals for expressing political opinions and for practicing religious beliefs that are viewed to be subversive to the control of the central authorities.
Apologists for Beijing often try to raise an argument based upon moral relativism or a suggestion that China's underdeveloped economy is a mitigating factor. However, violations of human rights cannot be dismissed on grounds of cultural differences or of stages of economic development.
Ironically, it can be argued that overseas Chinese are responsible for the limited outcry over Beijing's abuses. Although ethnic Chinese around the world exhibit pride in their heritage, they avoid critical assessments of what that culture has brought the country of their origin. It would appear that individuals of Chinese descent are less moved by persecution of their ethnic brethren than were African Americans who spearheaded the anti-apartheid movement.
Instead, there are assertions that the best way to improve human rights in China is through trade and investment. Multinational corporations are portrayed as an important engine of change that will generate a "multiplier" effect to improve the lot of Chinese citizens. It is partially true that foreign trade and investment in China can contribute to prosperity for some people in a few parts of China. However, the impact of external economic influences cannot raise the standard of living of most Chinese in an extensive or substantial manner.
On the one hand, economists offer little evidence to identify or quantify multipliers of any sort that generate an appreciable impact. Even if multipliers had worked elsewhere, it is far-fetched to expect them to operate in China's economy.
First, there are large disparities of income in between urban and rural areas due to uneven economic development. Second, these gaps can be expected to widen until China develops the physical infrastructure needed for a unified, national economy. As it is, the poor communication or transportation networks do not provide adequate links between the commercial centers of the hinterland.
On the other hand, after 20 years of economic reform and hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign investment, foreign-invested enterprises employ less than 1 percent of the Chinese labor force. Given the slowdown in foreign direct investment into China, this proportion is unlikely to rise significantly.
Another claim is that investments by multinational corporations in production facilities will hasten the move toward economic prosperity while introducing merit-based hiring practices as well as new models of leadership.
The belief that trade will democratize China is supported by political theorists ranging from Aristotle to Seymour Martin Lipset who argued that democracy is more sustainable only after a country reaches a threshold level of economic development. There is some evidence to support the belief. Taiwan's presidential election might be treated as a case where economic development encourages democratization.
However, the object is not merely about whether citizens have voting rights, itself a necessary and sufficient condition for a regime to call itself a democracy. Poor North Korea considers itself a democracy. Rich Singapore does as well despite its petty repressions and government-orchestrated attacks on political opposition figures. Many of the developed Asian economies have political systems that are paragons of "illiberal" democracy and lack the trappings of a civil society.
There is little evidence that prosperity provides the impetus for the formation of civil institutions. A mature civil society will have mechanisms for contract negotiation, the non-arbitrary application of the rule of law to protect individual rights and private property, a commitment to open and competitive economies as well as accountable and transparent political governance. Most Asian nations score low on this list.
The middle class may indeed be a necessary element of the formation of civil society that serves as a counter-balance to government abuse. However, an emerging, prosperous bourgeoisie is not sufficient to moderate authoritarian rule. Co-optation of the middle class and the implementation of government-sponsored organizations can supplant or forestall voluntary and spontaneous arrangements.
There are also claims that international companies will inspire the cadres to operate as if they were in a meritocratic setting. Most multinational corporations face the hindrance of having a local joint partner, most of whom have acquired their wealth and power through connections to the Communist Party. With so few opportunities for individuals to work in private sector firms, there are still strong incentives for many others to seek their fortune by joining the Communist Party or work for a state-owned enterprise.
Because of the severe restrictions on the development of private sector initiatives by both domestic and foreign interests, few state-owned enterprise are forced to face open competition. So there is little pressure on them to introduce better employment practices to increase productivity and improve product quality.
It will be a very long time before there are self-made entrepreneurs sufficient in number to join with employees in foreign-based corporations to be an effective force to influence political outcomes. Therefore, it is a stretch to believe that foreign influences can accelerate and expand the middle class and contribute to China's democratization.
Proponents of China's entry to the WTO or granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations rely upon similar exaggerations. The pressure upon social change is likely to be so slight and take so long that these initiatives will have little influence over China's authoritarian government.
Christopher Lingle is an independent corporate consultant and adjunct scholar of the Center for Independent Studies in Sydney who authored The Rise and Decline of the Asian Century. His e-mail address is: CLINGLE@ufm.edu.gt.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with