Interpreting China
In the maelstrom that is the US media, China references are surfacing with increasing frequency. Mentions range from reports on accidents, to predictions China will knock the US off its superpower plinth. China has become a big deal, but not so big that it’s being put under a microscope. Instead, the US prefers to view it through a telescope, with the upshot that what China is at a microcosmic level remains utterly unclear.
“Those who go beneath the surface, do so at their own peril,” Oscar Wilde said.
However, the US’ melange of frivolous views don’t derive from Wilde, but rather intellectual lethargy.
It’s not like there isn’t information available from which to construct a cogent, multifaceted analysis. You can find good, China-themed articles in The Economist and decent ones in Time. Foreign correspondents often have their finger on the Middle Kingdom’s pulse and any self-respecting bookstore ought to have a shelf or two of China volumes, if not a voluminous rack.
Modern Chinese history has been excellently documented in English (mainly by UK and US historians) and if the curious find the past too dreary or dense, they can read Peter Hessler, a US journalist and writer who went to China as an English teacher with the Peace Corps. Hessler has penned three books on China — River Town, Oracle Bones and Country Driving — employing a style that is both accessible and erudite. He excels at depicting a China in transition.
For non-readers, there is film. The BBC has produced documentaries on China’s rise and its education system, available online. Even the phlegmatic journalist Ted Koppel cobbled together an engaging series for the Discovery Channel called The People’s Republic of Capitalism (even if China’s system is better described as state-capitalism). This production sheds light on China’s economic model, highlighting the US and China’s fiscal interdependence and, like Hessler, gets feedback from the people.
Meanwhile, Charlie Rose appears obsessed with China, and if his eponymous program is too highbrow, viewers can tune in to the Late Show with David Letterman, where the host is sure to make quips about the US economy going down the tubes, and that soon Americans will be speaking Chinese. Though only a joke, Letterman’s shtick speaks to the Manichean and sensationalized nature of the discussion. It strengthens the perception that we reside in a bipolar world, not a multipolar one, and it works to affirm the widespread belief that China is going to, literally or figuratively, rule the world.
The appeal of the China-to-rule argument hinges on anyone being able to make it. It takes a lot of research to talk about what China is; very little to explicate on what it might become. While pundits hypothesize about China’s prospects, people in the US come no closer to grasping its essence. Americans don’t have the right answers for China because they aren’t asking the right questions.
Also at issue is that China tends to get reduced to numbers, making for a one-dimensional assessment. Columnists add a dimension by discussing China in terms of China versus the US, commenting on the subject as though it were a football game.
Worst of all is the proclivity to conflate China with Asia. The continent is sometimes presented as a kind of club, with all members on the same page and China as its chair. However, this “club” contains 48 highly diverse constituent parts that don’t like each other very much.
However, even upgrading your information source might not result in good intelligence. The China debate is divisive and bias eclipses clarity. Yes, there are Sinophobes, but they aren’t as informed, persistent or articulate as Sinophiles. China has always had ardent and ambitious non-Chinese supporters; passionate individuals who often pass into history as determined embellishers. China is exceptional, impossible to explain, Sinophiles say — unless they are the ones explaining it.
Martin Jacques is the most recognizable Sinophile these days. The author of When China Rules the World, Jacques preaches that China’s economic influence will translate to the exportation of its culture and values. China will dominate because it is, Jacques’ says, a “civilization state” and racially unique. However, all nations are racially unique and there is no such thing as a civilization state.
In a sense, Jacques’ views epitomize the China debate: They have the veneer of substance and sophistication, but are intellectually bankrupt. The writer’s ideas have been attractively bound, expressed in crisp academic prose, supported by statistics, graphs and pie charts, but they only shore up a thesis that is completely theoretical and China just isn’t a very theoretical place.
“There are no facts, only interpretations,” Nietzsche wrote.
It is my interpretation that in the China debate, too many interpretations are superficial.
Troy Parfitt
Greater Taichung
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry