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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
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.
RSS