Well, count me in. Despite his lack of scholarly credentials, I can't find myself disagreeing with anything he says. Consider his column in yesterday's Washington Post. The name of the column: "A Shining Model of Wealth Without Liberty."
In the article he makes three basic arguments:
1. China's economic and political model is replacing the U.S. one,
2. Western optimism about change in China has been proven wrong, and
3. The traditional U.S. strategy of "engagement" with China must be modified.
The first argument is the big one, and it's the one I've been making for a while:
This is pretty much exactly what I've been worrying about with regards to China. The big danger is not that China will nuke us, it's that China will serve as a bad example to countries around the world. After all, even Germany is impressed with China's model. And if you believe that liberal democracy makes people happier than any other system of government, or even if you just believe the Chinese model won't work outside of China, then this trend should worry you too.The Iraq war isn't over, but one thing's already clear: China won.
As the United States has been bleeding popularity and influence around the world, China has been gaining both. That's largely because it has been coming into its own as the first full-blown alternative since the end of the Cold War to Washington's model of free markets and democracy. As the U.S. model has become tarnished, China's has gained new luster.
For authoritarian leaders around the world seeking to maintain their grip on power, China increasingly serves as a blueprint...Beijing has shown dictators that they don't have to choose between power and profit; they can have both. Today's China demonstrates that a regime can suppress organized opposition and need not establish its legitimacy through elections. It shows that a ruling party can maintain considerable control over information and the Internet without slowing economic growth. And it indicates that a nation's elite can be bought off with comfortable apartments, the chance to make money, and significant advances in personal, non-political freedoms (clothes, entertainment, sex, travel abroad)...
The ruling party allows urban elites the freedom to wear and buy what they want, to see the world, to have affairs, to invest and to profit mightily; in return, the elites don't challenge the Communist Party's hold on power. Moreover, China's new business community is hardly independent of the party; in effect, it is the party, linked to China's power structure through financial connections or family ties.
(Note: I also like how Mann mentions sex as an important component of China's sociopolitical system. That fits with my general idea that sex is much more important in politics and economics than we tend to think.)
Mann doesn't have any suggestions for an alternative to "engagement." He might be afraid to push a hard line on China, since doing so might put him in the little-respected category of "China hawks." But I think few would object to this series of simple steps:
1. Get out of Iraq. Now.
2. Start arguing the case for democracy and liberalism to other countries. Don't assume we've already proven our case.
3. Strengthen our system of alliances, especially in Asia but also in Europe.
4. Use global forums like the WTO to criticize China, especially in areas that worry other nations as well - labor standards, IP, product safety.
5. Immediately start strengthening the U.S. economy - repair our infrastructure, experiment with public school reforms, invest in basic research, reduce the national debt, etc.
The best thing we can do to avert the danger from the "China model" is to make our own model stronger and more attractive. Then we'll see which country other nations want to emulate. Let the games begin.
PS - While we're on the topic, check out this article about how U.S. companies are desperate to stop a new Chinese law that improves labor standards.
0 comments:
Post a Comment