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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS