#4

Who’s Hu?

China has experienced a meteoric rise in power. This, of course, has garnered much attention from the international community, in particular the Western one. Not because of the magnanimity of other nations to accept China as a challenger to the position of world leader the U.S. has arrogated itself to, but rather because of the political system and leadership behind China’s success. It is not often that you see a “Communist” state overtaking democratic countries to become the second largest economy in the world. In fact, it has never happened. Not until China.

The collection of readings from the last few tutorials has painted China’s leadership in a negative light. They heavily criticise China’s leadership, claiming that the government utterly disregards the inalienable human right of free speech and expression. They condemn the Chinese government for its suppression of dissenting views from her citizens , and the widespread use of political propaganda upon the Chinese population.

All these would have been valid criticisms if not for a single factor - time. I admit that the current Chinese leadership does have many flaws. The inability to access many Western websites from within China, for instance, has been nothing short of utter frustration. The sterile political environment, while of no particular concern to me, is a big deal to Westerners who see democracy as the irrefutable political doctrine that every nation should encompass. But add the concept of time into the equation, and the dynamics of the situation change.

‘Time’ seems to be the important element that Western ‘experts’ have willingly excluded from their scathing reviews on Chinese leadership. A change in political ideology takes time. It needs to come at the correct time as well. China, frankly, is not ready for a shift in politics now; especially not a change to democracy. Democracy, in my opinion, should only be considered when China has reached a considerable level of economic stability, and when most Chinese citizens, not just the urbanities, have a relatively acceptable standard of living. The current Chinese economy, while painting a rosy outlook, is really fraught with uncertainties and dangers below the surface. A sudden change in governance might very well send China tumbling back into the 1960s, rendering all her progress over the past 3 decades as naught. Just look at the developing nations who employ a democratic system of government. Look at Thailand. What has democracy brought them? Riots, demonstrations, instability. Years of economic progress have been brought crashing down by political turbulence. This is the mistake China is looking to avoid. This is the reason why the Chinese government has not accepted democracy to date.

The Westerners should know this. They know this. But they rarely bring it up in their articles and reviews. Perhaps it comes from the intrinsic fear that a rising China would be a threat to the Western nations. Perhaps the success of the Chinese economy poses a threat to the perception of democracy as the best form of governance. But at the risk of sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I believe what these Westerners are trying to do is to stop, or at least inhibit, China’s progress. Kick her while she’s getting up. Deal with her before she becomes too strong.

But then again, that is just my opinion.

I do not mean to demean democracy in anyway. Democracy, in its ideal state, is a wonderful political system. But so too, is communism. The critical factor is when the political ideologies come into play. How can a developing country, before fulfilling the basic benchmarks of progress, try to satisfy their citizens’ higher needs for freedom of expression and political activity? Developing countries like China need a strong, capable central government to progress. The inherent benefit of a totalitarian regime like that of China’s is that decisions are made swiftly. No swashbuckling between Republicans and Democrats. No passing of bills back and forth. No votes, no hassle, no unnecessary bureaucratic procedures. In China, when Hu says something, the Chinese just do it. And that has given China the impetus for its startling economic growth.

Indubitably, with China’s economic might, her leadership does not just concern herself. It is of paramount importance to the global community. The pressing question that follows is not whether if China can become a world leader. She already is. The issue here, is if she can become a responsible world leader.

“Responsible”, “world”, “leader”: each of these three words is pregnant with meaning and equally fraught with ambiguity, and there is no better way to unravel the phrase, “responsible world leader”, than to ask if there is any such thing. Not less significantly, how is it that American experts get to ask if China is going to be a “responsible world leader”, and why is it that such a question is not posed apropos of the United States itself? Has there ever been a time when the US exercised its responsibilities as a world leader, or has it always confused responsibilities with prerogative, right, and might? What does responsibility entail, and to whom is this responsibility owed? Was the US exercising responsibility when it waged war against Iraq? Should US involvement in Vietnam be construed as a textbook lesson on “responsibility”?

The problem with defining a responsible world leader is that it is subjective. We all have different opinions. Some think that the US is being responsible by getting involved in the matters of other states. Others think that the US is being too meddlesome, and should mind their own business. And since it is always impossible to come to a conclusion that satisfies everyone, I shall not. The following will therefore just be my humble viewpoints.

Much of the Western community is skeptical about China being a responsible world leader. Although they do involve China in various economic forums and such, an underlying suspicion of the Chinese government is still present. Violation of human rights? Check. Political repression? Check. Lack of freedom? Check. These are all valid points from which the suspicion arise. The fear that China would not be responsible for the global community is further heightened in the case of Sudan. The Sudanese government have led the Sudan Genocide. They are condemned by the United Nations for their grave violations of human rights, and have been slapped with various economic sanctions. However, China has continued to maintain friendly relations with Sudan in exchange for oil, the vital resource which fuels her economic growth. This has sparked widespread condemnation from Western activists, who blast China for putting their economic needs above the precious lives of the Sudanese citizens.

These points are once again, valid. But why should they stop China from becoming a ‘responsible world leader’, when the perceived ‘responsible world leader’, the United States of America, has also engaged in the acts they so readily condemn? Violations of human rights. Does Guantanamo Bay, or perhaps the Vietnamese War, ring a bell? Political propaganda. What about the CNN news report which substituted a clip of Nepal policemen beating Tibetian monks for Chinese policemen? Or the intentional misinformation about casualties in the Iraq War to garner more support for the war effort? Is the US being responsible by invading Iraq, killing scores of Iraqis, then messing up the whole country for almost a decade, before they decide to pull out not for the benefit of the Iraqi locals, but rather because the American economy cannot withstand the escalating costs of staying in Iraq? Many international surveys, conducted not just in Western countries, have shown that there are more countries who prefer China to be a global leader than America. Americans have never fundamentally bothered with much of the “world”; indeed, it would not be saying too much to suggest that, so long as Americans have their football and baseball games, their big Macs and hotdogs, they are likely to remain impervious to the consequences of the exercise of American power around the globe.Thus, before American experts gather to pontificate to others about the responsibilities that come with being a world leader, they may be well advised to reflect on what it does mean to become a responsible “stakeholder” in global affairs.

The point here? Every country has committed, whether in the past or present, the acts they so condemn China for. It is unfair to label China as irresponsible especially when the ‘responsible’ United States engage in the very same activities which have banished China to the ranks of uncivilised and crude nations.

Do I hope that China would dominate the global community in time to come? No. My knowledge is far too limited to speculate what will happen. However, I do hope that the Western community would give China a fair chance to prove herself, and not blast China with utmost hypocrisy.