China lobbied long and hard to host this summer’s Olympics, and thousands of Chinese literally danced in the streets when the decision was made to award Beijing the Games. This was to be a chance for Chinese to show the world just how far they and their country had come. But as the saying goes: One should be careful what one wishes for.
China is getting a great deal of international attention, but not the sort it bargained for. It is finding itself under intense international scrutiny for everything from its policy toward Tibet, human rights and product safety to the level of its currency, its policy in Sudan and global climate change. What was meant to be a moment of celebration has turned into one of criticism.
Indeed, it is likely that several prominent world leaders, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, will not attend the opening ceremonies. Leading US political figures have also voiced support for a boycott.
Of course, China merits criticism in many areas of its domestic and foreign policy. But snubbing China is misguided. It ignores what the country has accomplished and it risks consequences that are inconsistent with what the critics themselves want to see.
Some perspective is called for. Modern China is only some six decades old. Its economic growth has been and is truly astounding. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty. Indeed, Chinese economic growth must be acknowledged as one of history’s great achievements in poverty reduction.
China is not simply wealthier; it is also a far more open place politically than it was during the Mao Zedong (毛澤東) era. Civil society is growing, with more than 300,000 non-governmental organizations. Official statistics shows that more than 85,000 public protests occurred in 2005 (and probably more each year since) over issues such as corruption, public health, the environment and land use. Even the recent earthquake in Sichuan Province revealed how Chinese politics are changing. Cameras were allowed in; senior officials were seen and heard.
There are also indications that China’s foreign policy is evolving. China has played a helpful role of late in encouraging North Korean cooperation with demands to limit its nuclear capabilities. In Sudan, China supported a UN Security Council resolution establishing an international operation and committed 315 engineers to the UN-African Union force.
None of this excuses or justifies the shortcomings in Chinese behavior at home or abroad, which are many and real. But reality is not one-dimensional. China is changing, in many ways for the better, and further change in the right direction is not likely to result from a policy of isolating or sanctioning China.
If we want China to become a full participant, a stakeholder, in the international system, we are more likely to achieve this outcome by integrating it into the world’s institutions. The Chinese need to see how they benefit from inclusion — and how they would suffer from not being one of the countries shaping and buttressing today’s international institutions.
We should seek the integration of Beijing as a matter of self-interest. In a globalized world, global challenges largely require global responses, which are impossible if a country of China’s size and population and wealth does not participate. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting more efficient energy use, taking action on climate change and maintaining an open global economy — these and other tasks require Chinese participation, even cooperation, if globalization is not to overwhelm us all.
One useful step on our part would be to end the anachronism of bringing together many of the world’s principal leaders in the annual G8 meeting of industrialized countries and not including China (or India or Brazil, for that matter) as a matter of course.
But integration will succeed only if China and its leaders are open to it. Communism and socialism do not command public support as they once did. Materialism and consumerism cannot be a substitute for political and religious freedoms, which remain severely constrained. Nationalism can all too easily fill a void. This is dangerous, as history demonstrates that leaders who allow or stimulate excessive nationalism can all too easily become trapped by it.
This argues not simply for keeping nationalism in check, but for allowing greater political and religious freedom so that there are alternative sources of legitimacy and allegiance in Chinese society beyond that of economic advancement. This is something that the Chinese will largely have to do by and for themselves. Outsiders can and should make their views known, but mostly in private and without saying and doing things likely to stimulate the very nationalism we want to discourage.
All of which brings us back to this summer’s events in Beijing. China needs to show respect for human rights and allow journalists to report. Rather than boycott Beijing, the world’s leaders should embrace the Olympics and what they represent. The Olympics are a venue in which individuals and countries compete, but in conformity with a set of rules. This is exactly what we want from China in the 21st century.
Richard Haass, a former director of policy planning in the US State Department, is president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS