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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS