writes Keith Bradsher:
HONG KONG: The international and Hong Kong authorities said Monday that they had received little information from mainland Chinese officials about a mysterious ailment killing pigs in southeastern China or about Chinese wheat gluten contaminated with plastic scrap, raising questions again about whether Beijing is willing to share data on global health issues.
Hm... well lucky me I don't eat pork, and I'd now absolutely recommend no one else living in China eat it either. In fact I'd recommend everyone stop eating it altogether. There are some diseases that only eating pork can give you, and they're pretty nasty.
In other news, the Washington Post published a book review (if you could call it that--the reviewer, Steven W. Mosher, never even mentions the name of the book he's reviewing, only mentioning it's the third by "principled China watcher" James Mann) about a book that addresses the problem of China watchers falling for the "China Fantasy," that China's economic reforms will lead to political reform. It's been almost thirty years, and hey, where's the democracy, the open elections, the rule of law, Mosher wonders.
But this so-called "book review" quickly devolves into a polemic of Mosher's own views, using the subject matter of Mann's book as a catalyst to kick-start a rant about how most China watchers are "cowardly and self-interested," a phrase he borrows from Mann. On this point they may agree, but it's impossible to tell just what exactly Mann's book is about since Mosher then proceeds with paragraphs that go something like this:
If the China Fantasy were true, American ways would already be coming to dominate in China. Democratic sentiments would be growing apace with the swelling Chinese middle class. Chinese youth (dressed in Levi's) would meet (at McDonald's) to discuss human rights. Internet chat rooms would be devoted to setting up opposition political parties. E-mails and faxes would encourage people to turn out for political rallies. Before we knew it, China would be abiding by the rule of law, enacting a written constitution and holding free elections.
There would be talk of returning the Goddess of Democracy to her throne in Tiananmen Square. China would be following America's lead in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) and cooperate with the American-dominated World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Beijing would dismantle its missiles ponted at Taiwan, recognize that democratic republic as a separate and equal state, and give up its smash-and-grab operations in the South China Sea. And as a result of all this, the United States would enjoy a true "strategic partnership" with a China that was evolving into a free market democracy.
Oh, where to begin, Mr. Mosher? Forgive me if I see a bit naive, I'm only 27 years old, you see, but please tell me on what historical basis do you think all these sort of democratic reforms would be taking place in just thirty years? How long did it take our own system to develop? How many centuries of monarchic rule did the people who rebelled against England suffer before setting up their own democracy?
But I shouldn't be comparing histories, it's not really fair. Consider for a moment that China has experienced in the past century more physical, emotional and political chaos than any major country on the planet. Actually I hate even mentioning this point because it's rather cliche now, but it's still true. Students I have taught have grandparents who lived in such vastly different conditions than those in which we live today, far more different than my grandparents lives were from mine. It's generation gap times ten.
Consider too that most of the country is still living in something like Middle-Age conditions, 800 million people or so who have no concept of what democracy is and why it's important. What do you think they care about, having food to eat or the right to vote for their leaders? Which would you care about more?
And what does democracy look like to the world today? According to the American Way, inevitably Imperialistic, in large part to the war in Iraq--whether it's a just war or not, this is a fact: countries such as China see us as more of a threat than before, and force-feeding democracy, even to those who want it, does nothing to assuage those fears and nothing to promote peace in countries that don't develop the democratic system from within. No dictatorship in all of history has ever lasted, but the best way to prop one up is to attack it, militarily or politically.
I hate to use this line, but unfortunately it seems neither Mosher nor Mann understand China well enough to make any constructive critique of the current situation and so I must: you don't understand China. I hate it when Chinese people tell me this as it seems to be a catch-all phrase for any situation in which they don't have a rational response to criticisms of China, but here it seems true.
One thing I have noticed about China is that its leaders almost always will refuse to bow to any sort of publicized pressure to make changes to their government, but when the changes do come, they occur quietly, through negotiations that are kept quiet. Unfortunately the US likes to make its human rights violations announcements on the world stage instead of dealing directly with China behind closed doors, and to what end? China then refutes the reports, and nothing changes.
Why? Face. It's a bitch for us Westerners to understand and deal with, but China, like Japan and Korea, need to have face, keep face, save face, etc. And the best way to do this is to give it to them, especially when you're criticizing. This means negotiation and compromise, and putting pressure in private, not in public. But as far as political strategy, that change can only come from within, and it can only come with time. As the Mao generation ages and dies out, and if the Western provinces can be economically improved, it is inevitable that the political system will change; we just can't expect it to ever bear a striking resemblance to our own.
Pigs dying mysteriously: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/07/news/pigs.php
Mosher's article/review of Mann's book (which he finally does say at the end is titled The China Fantasy): http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20070505-101331-9766r
0 comments:
Post a Comment