China Redux

Can’t resist the temptation: Told you so.

But it wasn’t just China that took a beating, as the WSJ’s Marketbeat points out. Every major market around the world dipped significantly at some point today. No question it demonstrates China’s growing importance to the global economy, both real and symbolic.

The market correction also showed the impact of weakening economic fundamentals in the US and elsewhere (see the drop in durable goods announced today, which didn’t help things). There’s no guarantee markets will rebound strong tomorrow. But if I had been planning to put some money to work in the US or Chinese markets, I would think that now would be as good a time as any to make an entrance. Not for the faint of heart, though.

I feel compelled to share and respond to Jeremiah’s impassioned post at Peking Duck, “Who Hates China” (and the fascinating comments chain that followed). I found the post especially poignant for the way it exposes a deep paradox of the China blogging community: the act of blogging is fundamentally an expression of freedom of speech, but the primary subject of China bloggers is a nation that greatly restricts that freedom. This is not merely a legal or political problem (although for some China bloggers it is undoubtedly so); it is a cultural one as well, and that’s where Jeremiah’s post really hits the mark:

It seems that whenever a foreign observer criticizes China too strongly, they are labeled as somebody who feels threatened by China’s rise and seeks to undermine or belittle the accomplishments of the last 25 years.

The kind of knee-jerk reaction described here is the cultural and intellectual by-product of a society that is unaccustomed to and/or unimpressed with full democratic freedoms. It can result in an inability to appreciate the nuances of complex views and emotions, and especially, to recognize and reconcile a multiplicity of opinions and perspectives. Jeremiah notes a special tendency for this kind of reactionary thinking with China; but it happens in mature democracies as well. The Bush Administration’s “if you criticize the Iraq war, you are unpatriotic and are helping Al-Qaeda win” foolish formulation is an example of what happens when a mature democracy is led by politicians who are deeply suspicious of participatory politics (especially the legislative branch) and pursue a royalist style of government. In the case of critiquing China, some folks just don’t want to leave room for certain views.

I, for one, don’t share many of Jeremiah’s opinions on China. But, while I don’t know Jeremiah personally, I feel confident that he would go to great lengths to enable thoughtful, respectful discourse on China, no matter what you or I may believe (again, check the comments on his post - the proof is in the pudding).

Nor would I peg him as a China hater or someone who feels “threatened by China’s rise”:

I criticize the Chinese government for the same reason I criticize the US government: because I do love the country and it hurts to see what is being done to it. If it pains me, a laowai, how much more should it hurt a self-proclaimed ‘Chinese patriot?

It can’t be said much better than that: China blogging as democratic discourse at its finest. Is there any higher calling?

Although purely coincidental, it’s somewhat fitting that ChinaRedux’s last post explored the role of neoconservatism in building the gospel of the “China Threat” at the same time as a major work on Richard Nixon’s fateful trip to China in 1972 has been released. Nixon and Mao: The Week that Changed by World, by acclaimed historian Margaret MacMillan (author of Paris 1919) , shows how Nixon’s and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s daring and unexpected diplomatic foray “dazzled their domestic critics, rattled the Soviet Union, impressed allies (despite their exasperation at not having been consulted) and set up an exit strategy for a war [Vietnam] that had become unwinnable,” according to John Lewis Gaddis in his NYT review of the book.

Despite winning acclaim from both side of the aisle for his bold maneuver, a number of conservatives were deeply stung by Nixon’s outreach to Chairman Mao. The famed handshake between the two leaders, in which Mao seemingly held on tight and wouldn’t let go, disgusted conservatives like William F. Buckley, who considered it unbecoming (or worse) for the US to engage with a leader such as Mao. Read the rest of this entry »

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s rancorous remarks on China during a speech on Thursday in Australia point to potential dangers ahead for the US-China relationship. Cheney’s embittered attitude towards China typifies the Bush Administration’s roller-coaster diplomacy and constant mixed signals for its Chinese counterparts.

One day the administration talks about the need for increased cooperation and partnership with China (and helping China to become a “responsible stakeholder”) ; the next day, a senior US official is publicly reprimanding China for its policies and chiding it for its most cherished strategic goal (the peaceful rise). No wonder China is wary of dealing with the US; it doesn’t know what to think.

The Bush Administration’s bipolar approach to China is emblematic of a broader foreign policy narrative which has plagued the president: the deep tension between the neoconservatives, including Cheney, and realist conservatives such as former Deputy Sectretary of State Robert Zoellick and current Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Both camps share some suspicions towards China, including its military goals and its human rights record. Read the rest of this entry »

China will have to manage substantial risk factors if it is to sustain its unprecedented economic development and growth into a major global power. But the United States also faces its fair share of daunting problems as it seeks to retain global leadership.

America’s finances are a mounting concern. Take the bulging US national debt, which stands at over $8 trillion and is 64% the size of the gross domestic product (GDP). The recently released $2.9 trillion fiscal year 2008 Budget of the United States (more info from NPR) includes $260 billion, or nearly 10% of the budget, to cover debt service to our creditors. Much of that debt service goes into the coffers of China’s central bank, which holds billions in US bonds.

Then there’s the tremendous rise in US defense spending. The FY 2008 budget seeks over $500 billion for defense-related programs: $481 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and at least another $50 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (a very conservative estimate). The defenset total represents an increase of over 11% from the previous year. The opportunity costs of increased defense spending are high: more money for the Pentagon translates into less funding for education, health, infrastructure and other programs that are critical for strengthening America’s competitiveness in the global economy. Read the rest of this entry »

China is ready to beat America. In the race for gold medals, that is.  That’s according to projections from the British Olympic Association released yesterday, which expects China to take home 48 gold medals (84 medals overall) and the US to win 37 gold (93 total) at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.  Russia, Austria and Netherlands round out the top five.

China wants this bad and they’ve put plenty of money into it.  It should be quite a spectacle.

Here’s a contrarian viewpoint that seems to be gaining favor among prominent Sinologists: As regards China’s rise, take nothing for granted. A little bit of skepticism can be healthy for everyone.

I say “contrarian” because it seems as if so much writing about China today is based on the premise that China will most certainly continue to grow at an unprecedented pace, and thus easily assume its place among the pantheon of great powers.

The fact of the matter is that because China has been able to sustain growth rates that were once thought unsustainable, many of us have begun to take the Chinese “growth miracle” for granted. Of course China’s economy will grow by 7%, 9%, 11% this year, we think. The numbers are automatically baked into next year’s global economic outlook.

What we seem to forget is that the chances of this miracle being interrupted are quite high. China’s growth “will not Read the rest of this entry »

It’s not often that the paper of record writes with such biting sarcasm. But the Times is not holding back its disdain for the way China has pursued relationships with certain African countries. Here is an excerpt from today’s NYT editorial page, entitled “Patron of African Misgovernment”:

Misspent your country’s wealth? Waged war against an ethnic minority? Or just tired of those pesky good governance requirements attached to foreign aid by most Western governments and multilateral institutions?

If you run an African country and have some natural resources to put in long-term hock, you’ve got a friend in Beijing ready to write big checks with no embarrassing questions. That’s nice for governments, but not so nice for their misgoverned people.

While I too have been critical of some of China’s investments in Africa (here and here), it’s worth noting that there is good that may yet come from the bad. Trade and investment helps to reduce poverty in Africa, period. And China is playing a major role in increased trade and investment on the continent.

Beyond the obvious problems of funding illegitimate, murderous regimes (!!!), the concern is that China’s investments in Africa seem to be only helping the autocrats and mining investors get richer (a point the Times editorial makes). In other words, GDP rises in African countries (which is generally good for reducing poverty), but the neediest in those countries don’t reap any of the benefits. Which gives foreign aid a bad name.

Here’s the lesson for China: If you must provide succor to reviled autocrats (in Africa or elsewhere), at least use your wealth to help the poorest people. That means funding for HIV/AIDS and malaria prevention programs instead of technical assistance to develop oil facilities. Or education projects instead of opening export markets. If you can do that, the truly decent might cancel out the truly awful in the eyes of the world. And the Times might even spare you its sarcasm.

It’s official: the strange saga of Dr. Gao Yaojie’s visit to the United States apparently will have a happy ending. The NYT reports that China “gave in to international pressure” and will release the prominent Chinese AIDS activist from house arrest so that she can travel to Washington to be honored next month.

This comes after a hoax perpetrated by Chinese authorities had some convinced that Dr. Gao had long ago been freed. What a harebrained scheme. Peking Duck offers some appropriate thoughts on this fiasco. Indeed, it was Senator Clinton who delivered the good news on Friday, saying that she was “delighted” after fielding a call from the Chinese ambassador in Washington. The nebulous involvement of Sen. Clinton in this affair adds a juicy twist. Might some powerful people in China think Clinton might be the next US president, and not want to get on her bad side? At the very least, Chinese leaders would very much like to avoid having its human rights, trade, labor, currency (etc etc) records become a major campaign issue in the 2008 US election cycle. But i

Dr. Gao, 80, has been kept under house arrest in the central city of Zhengzhou in Henan Province since Feb. 1 in a failed effort to keep her from travelling to the United States, where she was scheduled to be honored by Vital Voices Global Partnership, a nonprofit women’s advocacy group, and meet Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, an honorary co-chairwoman of the group.t could shake up that way in spite of China’s better efforts.

Ashley Esarey, an expert on Chinese media and author of Freedom House’s 2006 report on media censorship mechanisms in China, was recently interviewed by CFR.org about the recent loosening of regulations on foreign journalists in advance of the 2008 Olympics. The interview is available as streaming audio and podcast here.

To briefly summarize, Esarey explains the sophisticated mechanisms by which China manages media content, and explores some potential implications of the new regulations for both foreign journalists in China as well as Chinese media outlets. He identifies HIV/AIDS and social unrest/protests as two of the most sensitive issues for Chinese media. Esarey argues that the new regulations should be viewed as an experiment; depending on the outcomes, journalists in China could gain greater freedom or face tighter restrictions.

A bunch of China bloggers have already covered this issue from various angles. The incomparable China Law Blog has a great post on media payments to journalists in China, which includes a handy aggregation of other posts on this topic. Richard Spencer has written about how the new regulations are changing the way foreign journalists work and live in China.

Here’s a question for all the China bloggers out there with great expertise on this topic — Danwei, Imagethief, Silicon Hutong, Angry Chinese Blogger, Granite Studio, Off the Record: Are the new regulations for foreign journalists mere window-dressing in advance of 2008, or does this portend real change in the way China manages the media?

In the meantime, I am going to take this opportunity to heap praise on the brilliant CFR.org site, which to my mind offers the most comprehensive, savvy news and analysis on international affairs and politics on the web, bar none. Although CFR.org is not quite “Google for the foreign policy set,” as Slate.com’s Jacob Weisberg is quoted as saying, it’s really, really good in its own right. The august Council on Foreign Relations, which produces CFR.org, has developed a wonderful online strategy to distance itself from its other think-tank peers.