Visiting Beijing in August, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad startled his hosts by boldly warning against a “new version of colonialism.”
He was referring to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the trillion-dollar infrastructure plan that aims to put the People’s Republic of China at the heart of a global commercial web.
Mahathir’s invocation of colonialism could only have wounded leaders in Beijing, for the Chinese nation state has built its self-image on anti-colonialist rhetoric.
In its official historical narrative of its “century of humiliation,” devious Westerners imposed blatantly unequal treaties on China, cruelly curtailing its sovereignty. Japan then subjected the country to savage invasions and harsh exploitation, turning large parts of China into a Japanese colony.
Quite consciously, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has presented the Belt and Road as the opposite — a noble attempt to create a “community with a shared future for mankind.”
However, from Malaysia to Montenegro, unsustainable debt and rising trade deficits have provoked fears that China is acquiring, in colonialist style, too much power over remote foreign treasuries and the domestic politics of many countries.
Sri Lanka, for instance, is plunging deeper into debt due to the high interest rates on Chinese loans taken by the previous regime of former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa, in part to build a port with Chinese help and for Chinese use.
In Malaysia, China is “pouring in too much money, which we cannot afford, cannot repay,” Mahathir said in Beijing.
Those deals were signed by Mahathir’s scandal-tainted predecessor, former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak, who grew closer to China as he faced more pressure over allegations of corruption at home.
Mahathir is prone to spin conspiracy theories. At the same time, the 93-year-old did personally witness not only the subjugation of his country by the British, but its occupation by the Japanese from 1943 to 1945. On this occasion, the Malaysian leader has a historically well-grounded suspicion of how insidiously colonialism sprouts in both its Eastern and Western variants.
Mahathir himself once pointed out how during Western dominance over Asia “our economies were structured to serve the European demand for raw materials and natural resources.”
Financial manipulation was another means of structural readjustment, as in late 19th-century Egypt, where the government had undertaken massive infrastructural projects underwritten by Western bankers.
The British first leveraged Egyptian debt to reorient the country’s economic policy for the benefit of Western investors. And then, faced with local opposition, they eventually occupied the country.
The British also moved elsewhere, most famously in India, from being traders and investors to being colonialists.
However, for East Asians, it is Japan that offers the most sobering tale of how commercial interests aimed at general uplift can very quickly turn malignant.
Forced out of its isolation by Western powers in the mid-19th century, Japan did not set out to be a colonialist power.
However, it had wanted to accumulate “wealth and military power,” and Japanese politicians and thinkers convinced themselves that this required guaranteed access to the markets and resources of Asia.
This turned out to be only one step away from entrenching Japan’s interests militarily and economically in Taiwan, China and South Korea.
Even countries as far away as Indonesia were victimized by Japan’s economic self-seeking.
The Japanese arrived in Mahathir’s country after 1905 as investors in rubber and iron. By the 1930s, the Japanese came to see the Malay Peninsula with its commodities and markets as indispensable to their empowerment, and they disguised their self-interest with soothing rhetoric about creating a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.”
Military occupation duly followed in 1943 as the Japanese felt that their web of commercial interests was imperiled.
With violent coercion and brutal exploitation becoming the rule from Japan-occupied Singapore to then-Burma, the idea of “co-prosperity” came to be seen as a sick joke across East Asia.
Mahathir has not forgotten this history of inadvertent colonialism.
To his ears, China’s proposed “community with a shared future for mankind” probably sounds an awful lot like Japan’s “co-prosperity sphere.”
Chinese leaders would do well to heed an old and experienced man’s warning.
Pankaj Mishra is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and the author of several books.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under