During the Western world's half-century standoff with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, it was never hard to find a few drippy-hearted folks who believed we could just hug the whole thing out.
In his final days in office, our own Pierre Trudeau embarked upon a cloyingly maudlin "peace mission" through eastern Europe, doing his best to charm the region's Communist tyrants through a string of mushy speeches. "You guys have your problems, but we Western democracies ain't so perfect either," was the basic gist. Â Such righteous pragmatism was a deliberate effort to contrast the prime minister's supposedly "big picture" understanding of foreign affairs against the uncompromising Reagan administration south of the border, with his "evil empire" this and "tear down this wall" that.
And some bought it. "If all politicians were like Mr. Trudeau," John Lennon famously quipped, "there would be world peace."
Well, today all politicians are indeed very much like Pierre Trudeau, at least in the sense that they're likely to regard the growing spectre of a nuclear-armed superpower to the east as an opportunity for friendship, rather than worry. The rise of China, and Western leaders' often naive and overly forgiving reaction to it, can be seen as a sort of Cold War mulligan; a chance to relive an era of east-west strategic tension, only now the West gets to play the role of permissive enabler of totalitarian Communist dictatorship, rather than hard-nosed critic.
Chinese apologism has so thoroughly permeated Western society that it's easy to lose sight of just how completely we've surrendered the robust principles that used to straighten spines during the previous Cold War. Anyone who cares knows, for instance, that the Chinese are engaged in exactly the same sort of covert and overt support for odious third-world regimes that we used to condemn the Soviets for, yet few of our politicians today seem particularly bothered by it. We know that Beijing was offering guns to Gaddafi until his final months, that the People's Republic has been the most enthusiastic financier of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe and General Bashir's Sudan, and that any punitive measures against the nuclear ambitions of North Korea or Iran will be vetoed by China in the UN Security council, yet somehow, the idea that China is any sort of existential threat to global stability or human rights rarely enters the public discourse.
If anything, the exact opposite is the case. When Prime Minister Harper offered even the most mild critique of Chinese human rights during a 2006 APEC summit, he was soundly blasted by the opposition and told to "lower the volume." Acclaimed intellectuals like The New York Times' Thomas Friedman author column after column about how much we have to learn from our Chinese betters, even going so far as to fantasize about the multitude of ways America could be improved by adopting their system for just one day. Even Republican presidential wannabe Jon Huntsman, himself a former ambassador to the nation, never misses an opportunity to shush his fellow conservatives when their China talk gets a bit too peppery.
As the West's political, academic, and business elite plunges deeper and deeper into Sinophilia, with endless trade tours, fact-finding missions, and all other manner of lavish junkets to the wealthy Communist nation, criticizing the Chinese dictatorship (or even using inflammatory language like "Chinese dictatorship") has become the new signifier of simple-minded provincialism. To those who view China as nothing but a vast bounty of products to import, loans to sign, and students to gouge, any unpleasant talk about the realities of the state itself -- its sky-high execution rates, its brutal suppression of religious and ethnic minorities, its vast and Orwellian surveillance state, its imprisonment of Nobel Peace Prize laureates -- are at best impolite distractions only a thoughtless saboteur would raise. It's all a dramatic contrast to the sort of mindset that governed the Western world's leaders during the 1950s and '60s, when the excesses and terror of the Soviet Union inspired nations to labor hard to prove the successes of their alternate model of economics and politics, rather than simply capitulate to the tyrannical superpower in its first moment of ascendancy.
During Trudeau's time, it was sometimes hard to tell how many Western Cold War critics like him genuinely believed that "both sides were to blame," and how many just used that line as a convenient pretext to disguise their own pro-Soviet leanings. With China, there's significantly less ambiguity. The new, more wealthy and powerful disillusioned class no longer merely imply that the West should abandon its commitment to democracy and international stability in favor of Chinese hegemony, they practically shout it from the rooftops.
It's pretty easy to win a war of values when only one side is interested in fighting.
Follow J.J. McCullough on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JJ_McCullough
Michelle Kraus: Liberals Our Affair With Jon Huntsman Is Over
Jason Salzman: If Only the American Economy Wasn't Dragged Down by the Welfare of Its People
Tom Zeller Jr.: At Global Climate Talks, The U.S. and China Are Divided As Ever
"its sky-high execution rates" - on a per capita basis, even if you take the silly number of 5,000 a year used by AI, that is 1/25th of the 30,000 Americans executed year in and year out (according to the CDC) by gunshots alone.
"its brutal suppression of religious and ethnic minorities" - how brutal? How many died? Religion has been thriving in China, despite all these Western lies. China may be Godless (no single deity above the State), but it is hardly godless. Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam all are represented. Even agnostics and atheists abound. As long as they do not presume to interfere with matters of state, they are pretty much left alone. Ethnic minorities? What about it? The Hans are perennially upset that the 55 other ethnic minorities are given WAY too much opportunities in jobs, in education, etc. China singularly spends the largest fraction in GDP on preserving and promoting ethnic minority culture (university chairs, research, minority language studies, etc.)
"its vast and Orwellian surveillance state" - you mean a bigger budget (not possible) than INFRAGARD, MAGIC LANTERN, CARNIVORE, ECHELON, etc.? You are blowing smoke.
" its imprisonment of Nobel Peace Prize laureates" - the guy happens to have taken millions in foreign government money to advocate the overturn of the legitimate Chinese government. Jail is where he belongs - he would have been jailed anywhere in the world.
There.
Can we assume that Zhuubaajie, as a fully paid up member of the CCP, has an office in the embassy?
A nice article for the general public. The business elite already knew the gist of the article; hence the trade junkets to the Middle Kingdom. Taiwan, watch out, you may not have supporters for long!
I think the defining difference between modern China and the cold-war USSR, however, is that China is in anything BUT an ideological ascendancy. Economic? Sure. Military. Yes. But their worldview and style of governance has been getting steadily more moderate for the past twenty years, and will only continue to do so. Artists protest the government openly and are (sort-of) tolerated. Businesses import more and more Western culture and the Chinese do less and less to water it down. It is the Chinese government that has moderated the junta that is now only sort-of in control of Burma, and that has granted meaningful power to progressive, benevolent civilian leadership. China keeps North Korea firmly in check, and would likely just annex it if it could afford all the resulting refugees.
That's not to say that we should overlook their many misdeeds, some of them listed above. Their support for Mugabe is particularly disgusting. However, the age of Chinese imperialism is over; everywhere the Chinese system is in place, it is being watered down, moderated and systematically Westernized. That cannot be said for Stalin's union.
In 2010, American companies made more than $100 Billion in profits in and from China.
At the end of the day, fair trade has to mean equal profits. In that aspect the trade is ABSOLUTELY AND GROSSLY UNFAIR. American companies were basically given free rein to expand into China. American auto companies sell more cars in China than anywhere else. Walmart has 350 stores. Yum Brands has the largest restaurant chains in China. Hospital diagnostic equipment is dominated by GE. The list just goes on. Aircrafts are dominated by the likes of Boeing. The Gap is now talking about shuttering 22% of its American stores, and tripling its number of stores in China in the next few years.
Yet with extreme asymmetric treatment, America basically blocked most Chinese investments into America. WHAT Chinese companies are allowed to have hundreds of outlets in America? Deal after deal was blocked by the xenophobes in Washington.
As a direct result of the above, the profit imbalance is at least 5 or 6 to 1 in favor of America (exports to America typically gives the Chinese exporters no more than 3-5% margins).
The jury is out on whether investment in China will turn out to be the D Day landing or Napoleon's march to Moscow. But supposing these investments turn out to be good ones long term, the Chinese have certainly been clever in allowing/insisting on investment in their country as a price of admission for doing business in their country.
Here in North America we, foolishly, chose cheap imports over investment, the result being that jobs have been exported to China. There can be little disagreement that China uses currency manipulation, exploitation of an impoverished workforce, intellectual property theft, protectionism against imported goods and an atrocious environmental record as weapons in this economic battle.
And I totally agree that companies from the rest of the world have been complicit in this attack on our standard of living.