Email This to a Friend
Thirty Years of Engaging China
Is it time for a reevaluation of policy?
In that context, China prospered. The United States, for reasons both altruistic and selfish, tried to ease China’s transition away from Marxist economics and Maoist political institutions. The Chinese, of course, flourished in this benign environment, benefiting greatly from the American-led system in the past three decades. During this time, Beijing’s leaders reached out to other nations and multilateral institutions, and, as a result, the State Department now sees China as a “responsible stakeholder” in the international community.
But is it? Beijing’s leaders hope for a “multipolar” world, which means they want a global order where America is no longer preeminent. Americans can’t blame China for trying to increase its influence, but its effort to generally push them aside makes that nation a “strategic competitor.” Washington is full of analysts who say that the United States shouldn’t call China an enemy because that will make it one, but Beijing has by its own words branded itself an adversary. Although the challenge may be “discreet,” it is nonetheless real. Chinese diplomats try to maintain cordial relations with their Washington counterparts and cooperate when it is in their interests to do so, but People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s flagship publication, daily condemns America and tells it to step out of the way of its preferred international system. As China watcher Minxin Pei wrote recently, “China will now insist that its engagement with the international system proceed on its own terms.”
This change in thinking has had consequences. Under Hu Jintao, the current supremo, China has adopted an increasingly adversarial posture. In 2006, for example, the Chinese fired a laser to blind an American satellite, a direct attack on the United States. In October of that year, a Chinese submarine for the first time surfaced in the middle of an American carrier group, an obvious warning to the U.S. Navy to stay away from Asian waters. And during Hu Jintao’s tenure, China has stepped up cyber attacks against defense and civilian networks in the West and its allies.
So we are, unfortunately, dealing with a China that is moving past Deng’s policy of avoiding confrontation. The diminutive leader, we should remember, counseled Beijing to “bide time” until China became stronger. Now that China is stronger, the country is displaying a new side to its diplomacy, always assertive and sometimes hostile.
Perhaps the most ominous sign of Beijing’s hostility is that it sees China as the core of a grouping of authoritarian states, its first real step in creating a framework for a post-America world. And in the center of this strategy is its growing relationship with Russia.
The Dragon and the Bear are not natural allies. Even as fraternal communists they were often trading barbs and sometimes gunfire. Despite all this, natural forces are now drawing Beijing and Moscow together. Both of them are deeply suspicious of the West. They see themselves as rising powers. They want to reorder the international system. They share many friends. They identify the same adversary.
Neither China nor Russia is willing to directly challenge “the world’s sole superpower” now, but each believes we are faltering and is waiting for opportunities to pounce. They provide cover to each other and oppose our initiatives, and both of them never miss an opportunity to divide us from our allies. They collaborate to strengthen institutions that constrain our power and conspire to bedevil us from their permanent seats on the Security Council. They are, in short, counterbalancing us. Each has a ruthlessly pragmatic foreign policy and is playing for nothing more than its own advancement. They may no longer be “gambling for the world” as they once did, but both are willing to act disruptively. Each on its own may not be inherently threatening, but the combination of the two — the world’s most populous state and its largest nation — constitute an especially dangerous pair.
Thirty years ago we moved closer to Beijing to counter Moscow. Today, however, it is the two of them that are joining forces against us. China is moving in wrong directions, and now it’s time for us to change course.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Gordon G. Chang is the author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World and The Coming Collapse of China.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
67 Comments
1. Zbigniew Mazurak:Mr Chang,
I don’t think that Nixon’s rapprochement with China was right even in 1972. Had Nixon sided with the USSR instead, the Soviet Union would then defeat China militarily, annex whatever territory it would want, and create a puppet state in the remaining territory. On the other hand, choosing China’s side would never bring about a military victory over the USSR.
Nowadays China remains strong; Russia has become strong again and has began rebuilding its Soviet empire. Had Nixon sided with the USSR in 1972, China would not exist today.
Jan 3, 2009 - 2:21 am 2. Zbigniew Mazurak:I would be glad to see Mao nuked to hell, whether by a Russian warhead or an American one. He was the worst mass murdered in history and he deserved it. The USSR should’ve nuked China to hell.
Jan 3, 2009 - 2:26 am 3. paranoidhaters:This article is borderline paranoid. I hardly sees the need of US hostility to China and vice versa. Because of people like you, our world is what it is. Embroiled in wars and conflict forever.
Jan 3, 2009 - 4:32 am 4. adam d.:In many ways it’s been our China policy that has brought us to this particular critical moment in our own economic and social history, and it was at least partly done for the sake of bringing them to this critical moment in theirs.
And they’ve arrived. They have a hungry and growing business class, ever stronger dependencies on the global economy and now, a crisis that will force change.
We’re here. I don’t think it makes sense to abandon a policy at the 11th hour just because it isn’t the 12th hour yet.
Jan 3, 2009 - 5:27 am 5. Dr. Shalit:CHINA – I’ll see your RUSSIA and Raise You an INDIA – Seems that’s where our Policy is going on a military basis if less so economically. Example? The Indian Navy – Doing the work that the Royal Navy used to do before the UK Taxpayer threw in the towel. -S-
Jan 3, 2009 - 5:50 am 6. chuck,:now it’s time for us to change course.
Jan 3, 2009 - 6:04 am 7. dan:OK. Where?
what, in the author’s opinion, is the significance of the shanghai cooperation organization? from the distance imposed by the disinterested or manipulated international media, this entity would appear to be inconsequential, some small or groping and probably mutually suspicious effort to put pressure on US positions in central Asia, for example. yet history and simple common sense instruct that there is much more to it than that, not least because of iran’s possible membership in light of the russian-iranian nuclear cooperation and strategic sino-iranian fuel guarantees, the latter of which virtually operates as a mutual defense pact. in any case, these governments are all shrouded in secrecy. the shaghai cooperation organization is one visible manifestation of their relationships. in the author’s opinion, what is its true significance?
Jan 3, 2009 - 7:17 am 8. kabud:unfortunately my comment was deleted here
even though it showed a proof that Beijin conducted an internet poll in 2002 asking chinese if they prefer to KILL women and children of the enemy or let them live
it was reported that 80% chinese answered: to kill
found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://jczs.sina.com.cn/2004-02-02/1644180066.html
this is how google translated it:
If you are a soldier, in the case of the higher level to allow you to shoot women and children or prisoners of war it?
http://jczs.sina.com.cn 2004年02月02日16:44 舰船知识网络版 02 years http://jczs.sina.com.cn 2004 on 02 day 舰船知识online version 16:44
【 评论 】【 军事论坛 】【 推荐 】【 大 中 小 】【 打印 】【 关闭 】 【Comment】 【military forum】 【Recommended】 【Big Middle Small】 【Print】 【Close】
Jan 3, 2009 - 9:01 am 9. ic:“Today, however, it is the two of them that are joining forces against us.”
Only two of them? Seems they are encouraged and abetted by our sneaky sleazy “allies”, the EU who always believe and act as if they are superior to us, and want to replace us. Unfortunately, about half of our population, the so-called progreswsive Americans have the same belief that the Europeans are superior.
Jan 3, 2009 - 10:50 am 10. Mr Blackwell:This author previously submitted a piece urging the defense of Taiwan as some great benefit for the US. I disagreed with that piece and disagree with this one.
Free floating hostility to China and a refusal to stay engaged with it is senseless: they surfaced a sub in the middle of one of our battle groups? Wouldn’t have happened in 1945 but this is 2008 and in “their waters” that ought not to be a surprise. If it happened off California, that would be another matter.
The laser agianst our satelite? no I don’t like it either, but the USSR shot down a U2, there was the Pueblo, and so on. The idea that people will sit there as we spy on them is naive. Our job is to spy even better.
Adopting a distance with China what for us? A hard line relationship as we had with the USSR? Losing the layer of young people in China that might not wnat hostility with us? They might develop, like kids in the US south over time, into a better group than their parents.
Face it: China is big, developing fast and the more contact we have with them the better. The idea that they are still the battle weary people from 1945 is nuts.
This author wants to fight the battle for mainland china as if Mao didn’t win it and as if the corrupt groups running Taiwan are another Israel. Get real.
Jan 3, 2009 - 11:59 am 11. therealist:The US has good relations with India and China, both of which will very likely become superpowers and the second/third largest economy. That seems like good strategy to me. Russia’s influence will decline due to an aging population and total lack of economic development and innovation. Europe is weak and aging and has huge pension liabilities and may even get overwhelmed by Islam. I think we picked the two right horses (India/China) and there’s no reason that their political & economic systems can’t improve over the next few decades.
Jan 3, 2009 - 12:10 pm 12. Follow me!:More engagement not less is the answer. The US is lucky Nixon ended the artificial state of ignoring each other when he did.
Jan 3, 2009 - 12:14 pm 13. dan:a thing i wonder: was it not possible for china – that is, the chinese communist party – to forsee the day when the west had exported a huge amount of its manufacturing operation to china? we underestimate marxist-leninist – or “socialism with chinese characteristics” – ability to understand capitalism. all it had to do was lay low and allow western companies, particularly from the usa, to establish factories and other operations in china, and penetrate those operations via the usual advisors and translators and minders, through whom it could steal what it wanted, below a certain minimum that might force the companies to take responsive measures.
i wonder what we have gotten out of the relationship besides cheap labor and therefore cheap imports. geopolitically i don’t recall china handing us any great favors with respect to its clients/our enemies. they build military capability against taiwan; they export terror, drugs, nuclear and missile technology via north korea; they colonize africa and enable the islamists there in exchange for oil; they subsidize the iranian regime, also for fuel. they collaborate with the worst elements in pakistan. recent reports indicate hamas’s rockets are “of chinese manufacture” – although it is possible (though unlikely)that iran is solely responsible for their transfer.
i realize the economic crisis and spector of mass unrest throughout china provides a comforting counterweight to these expansionary or destabilizing foreign policy initiatives, but does it really seem wise to – as in iran – rely on resitve masses to accomplish what has almost always required a conquering army?
who knows. perhaps the CCP will be reformed or disbanded under developmental and present economic pressures. it seems optimistic to imagine that happening, though.
Jan 3, 2009 - 12:16 pm 14. Gordon Chang:Zbigniew Mazurak, I understand your view that no deal with China was justifiable. As it turned out, we got very little from this cynical arrangement with Beijing.
Thanks for raising this important issue.
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:02 pm 15. Gordon Chang:paranoidhaters, China is prolifering nuclear weapons technology to Iran, protecting just about every rogue state today, attacking American satellites, and committing trade violations on a massive scale. It is conducting perhaps the largest series of attacks on American defense and computer networks. Beijing says it wants to cut America down to size. So am I paranoid or are you ignoring facts?
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:07 pm 16. Gordon Chang:adam d, in the long run, China will become a responsible power. That could take decades, however. In the meantime, China could help bring down the international system. I don’t think we should stick with engagement when it is clear that it is not working fast enough to change China.
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:11 pm 17. Gordon Chang:chuck, it’s time to treat China like we would any other nation. Now, however, we excuse Beijing for grossly irresponsible conduct or we ignore it. Worse, we even reward unfriendly behavior.
Example: we say nothing when China transfers materials and nuclear know how to Iran’s nuclear weapons program except to praise Beijing for being a responsible nuclear power. What sense does that make? We never impose any price on China for supporting the world’s most dangerous regime with destructive technologies. I think we know what can happen next.
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:18 pm 18. Gordon Chang:dan, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has been described as the “anti-Nato,” and I think this label just about sums it up. China wants to remove the United States from Central Asia. We don’t have to infer hostility; all we have to do is quote back its words uttered at the SCO to show that we are indeed adversaries.
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:20 pm 19. Gordon Chang:ic, the Europeans are manageable, however. China and Russia, on the other hand, are not.
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:21 pm 20. Ken Hahn:China is imperialist. The Chinese government and people see the remained of the world as colonies or future colonies. Unless our policies are based on this fact, they are doomed to failure.
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:34 pm 21. Gordon Chang:Mr. Blackwell, if it was anyone’s waters, it was Japan’s.
There is no justification for lasering our satellites. Not saying anything just encourages more aggressive behavior in the future.
China may be big, but that does not mean we have to accept conduct that destablizes the international system. I’m not of the school that says we have to accept whatever a large authoritarian state says.
Of course we want friendly relations with everyone, but the notion that a dictatorial state can be integrated peacefully into a liberal democratic order is untested. Given China’s increasingly assertive behavior over the past three years, we should at least be wary.
I don’t want to fight the Chinese. What makes you think that? I just think that our policies toward China are encouraging the very type of behavior we wish to avoid.
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:41 pm 22. Gordon Chang:therealist, you write: “and there’s no reason that their political & economic systems can’t improve over the next few decades.” In fact
China’s political system has been getting more repressive over the last twenty years. Today, for example, there is less tolerance for political speech than there was in 1988. Structural economic reform stopped about a half decade ago, and Beijing has been closing off its economy since the middle of 2006.
Is China a better place these days? Yes, but that is only because of the assertion of the Chinese people. The government, in important respects, is moving backward.
So there is are lots of reasons why we will not see progress, and most of them are rooted in the politcal system.
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:45 pm 23. Gordon Chang:dan, the Chinese government is weaker than it looks. Why the need for all the repression if it is so popular? The wave of strikes, protests, and pitched battles in the last seven months is a sign we should be concerned about the stability of the Chinese state.
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:49 pm 24. Gordon Chang:Ken Hahn, yes, Beijing may not be trying to replicate the formal relations of its tributary system, but it does betray more than just a trace of imperial attitude to others, especially neighbors.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Jan 3, 2009 - 1:50 pm 25. Rob:Excellent discussion. Mr. Chang’s exposition of the dark possibilities in an alliance of Russia and China shows this to be as important, say maybe more important, than the feel good ‘tame dragon’ policies that we have been following up to now.
Russia is looking like a situation that is growing more confrontational and the ‘tame bear’ diplomacy less and less effective as they seek confrontation for domestic reasons.
We need to find ways to increase the costs of their non-constructive actions. Doing everything to keep the price of oil down is one of those things. It will cripple Russian adventurism and and separate Russia from China since one needs high oil prices and the other wants low prices.
Another issue is that there are competing power centers in China and the central government does not always call all the shots. Both the lasering of our satellite and the detention of our plane on Hanan Island were instigated by the Chinese military and they had their own reasons to force these issues.
Jan 3, 2009 - 3:09 pm 26. 888:In the case of Iran, they are getting away with what amounts to war on US interests by hiding behind these kinds of non accountable actors.
I don’t think Mr. Chang is seeking or pushing disengagement. A review of policy and relationship is always healthy and, in this case, very prudent and responsible, especially in light of China’s regional ambitions in Vietnam and in the Philippines and its growing influence in Africa and our own backyard in Latin America.
China’s global competitive advantage by continuing to artificially hold down the price of its Yuan currency against the dollar and building its economy based almost exclusively on cheap exports is not sound, long-term thinking nor is it sustainable. However, in just 3 short decades since the start of its era of reform in 1978, China has managed to amass an unbeatable war chest of foreign exchange reserves valued at $1.9 TRILLION!!! by the end of September 2008. While sole super-power, US of A, is saddled with a nationwide housing/financial meltdown, 2 wars, homeland security concerns and over $10.7 trillion in gross national debt, and rising (expected to increase by $2 trillion this year alone due to all the bailouts and Obama’s proposed ‘economic stimulus’ programs
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/US_debt_could_increase_by_2_trillion_this_year/articleshow/3931551.cms).
Thus, we cannot afford economically, militarily, or psychologically to look the other way when it comes to China. They’re in for the long haul, and we need to be right there with them, in step, throughout.
Jan 3, 2009 - 4:45 pm 27. Mike T:I’ll make my own prediction here, based on the rapidly changing religious demographic. In 15-20 years, much of China’s army will be Christian. Then, one day, a Christian general will dream of seeing a cross in the sky and hear the Chinese equivalent of “in hoc signo vinces…”
Jan 3, 2009 - 6:25 pm 28. Mike T:(When that happens, our relationship with China will truly become interesting).
Jan 3, 2009 - 6:26 pm 29. dan:mr. chang, i recently met a gorgeous little chinese girl from shanghai, a girlfriend of my high school friend. it was clear that she was very cynical about her government, although she also had a deep, background national feeling. i realize there are great class and educational distinctions in china, but when she spoke i heard a general cynicism – her tone of voice suggested “everyone she knew in china” thought as she did, as it were. i think the immense web of interdependencies and patronage resigns enough people to the government that it produces a sentiment functionally like popular accord. “popularity” suggests approbation, but resignation is sufficient to rule. i think the popular unrest shows the weakness of the system/environment more than it shows a demotic threat to the regime. but i’ve never been there so i can’t claim any expertise.
with respect to the sco, do you think it suggests anything about a deeper coordination of strategy between russia and china? or do you think the SCO, in light of military and economic disparities, is more of a gesture than anything else?
Jan 3, 2009 - 7:58 pm 30. Colin Glassey:China is clearly not an ally of the U.S. but as enemies go, its pretty tame. We in the U.S. have benefited from (a) cheap Chinese production and (b) Chinese buying up U.S. debt. China has also benefited in clear and obvious ways both to its leadership and many people in the country at large.
Problems: China is a great power and looks like it will be stronger in the future, despite many real problems that it faces (pollution, an aging population, etc.). Our options in dealing with China are very limited but we are doing the right things: making India into more of an ally, increased trade with Vietnam, trying to keep good relations with both S. Korea and Japan.
In history it is rare to find two great powers which are in competition that are not enemies. Our relation with China is unusual but I think about as good as it can be.
Jan 3, 2009 - 9:19 pm 31. Zbigniew Mazurak:Mr Chang,
It’s clear what do you advocate with regard to China: a revision of America’s policy that would take all Chinese adversarial actions into account, including WTO lawsuits, protection of the American industry, fighting the Chinese in the cyberspace, strengthening the US military and the Taiwanese armed forces, and limiting the number of visits to China by American officials. I agree with that.
But what would you advise the US government to do with regard to Russia?
Jan 4, 2009 - 2:14 am 32. Frank:Our main issue with China right now is our trade deficit. This has affected our manufacturing base. China has attempted to delay the inevitable fall of the dollar due to the imbalance by buying our debt thereby reducing the oversupply of US dollars. Since the chinese use slave labor form prisons I do not believe this can be overcome by increased productivity in the american workforce.
As for the people that think it is paranoid to fear the chinese do we have to remind you that the opened fire on their own citizens at Tianeman Square not so long ago.
Personally I think we should rethink our trade policy altogether. The United States should ban all trade from any country that is not a representative democracy. Period!!!
Since trade with a dictator will never do anything but allow a dictator to flourish and exact his immoral rule it is immoral for us to trade with him.
This action woukld probably see the demise of Chavez in Venezuaka in five years and would probably force China to eventuallymake reforms. There is no benefit to dealing with Communist China as anything but an enemy.
Jan 4, 2009 - 2:42 am 33. Lawrence Kohn:Russian-Chinese ties are not mere convenience. The alleged collapse of the Soviet Union was a strategic retreat designed to get into Western economic institutions and to get the West to dismantle the restrictions on technology acquisition. Gorbachev made rapprochement with China in 1989 after crushing of democracy demonstrations in Beijing. They have been allies ever since. Yeltsin’s transition was pseudo democratic and he never discontinued Russia’s alliances with Iran, Syria, the PLO or Iraq; Putin was handed over power by Yeltsin’s retirement and with the 17 years of acquiring high tech, rebuilding it armed forces and gaining access to G-7 now G-8 was ready to move forward in alliance with China against the US. Note carefully the nuclear weapons field where China has been gaining strength and where Russia under both Yeltsin and Putin has deployed two new nuke ICBMs land based under Yeltsin and mobile under Putin and under Putin new nuclear sub. US which needs naval rearmament and new generation nuclear weapons to counter China and Russia is standing still. Time is wasting. All this said about history, this article is a good first step for US policy in the future.
Jan 4, 2009 - 7:52 am 34. Gordon Chang:Rob, thank you. Yes, we have to impose costs on Russia and China for their obstructionism. If we don’t, they will continue to their irresponsible policies. One does not need a degree in international relations to realize that. It’s just common sense.
Jan 4, 2009 - 8:35 am 35. Gordon Chang:888, you’re correct about the renminbi. At a time when the global economy is going into a deep downturn, Beijing is resuming its efforts to drive down its currency and it is taking even more steps to close off its market. This will only invite retaliation from others. This is deeply irresponsible.
Jan 4, 2009 - 8:40 am 36. Gordon Chang:Mike T, as I guess you know, that, in broad outline, has already happened. The Taiping rebellion in the mid-1800s resulted in about 20 million deaths.
Jan 4, 2009 - 8:44 am 37. Gordon Chang:dan, the SCO started out as a joke and is growing into a real alliance. It is not quite there yet, but the growing institutional links among its members and the strengthening of the organization itself should be of concern to Washington. The impending addition of Iran is a sign of things to come.
The views of the girl you met are common. Almost everyone in China is cynical. They may not oppose their government, but they won’t support it either.
Jan 4, 2009 - 8:49 am 38. Gordon Chang:Colin Glassey, that’s more or less a fair assessment, although I would emphasise the underlying hostility of senior leaders and the weakness of the political system. A weak Beijing can be more troublesome than a strong one.
Jan 4, 2009 - 8:52 am 39. Gordon Chang:Zbigniew Mazurak, Russia is less of a problem in that its leaders are less subtle than China’s.
We need to do pretty much the same things now as we did in the 1980s. Russia is overtly hostile to us, and we need Washington to atop ignoring Moscow’s threats. President Bush was much too indulgent with Putin. Putin hurls these threatening words our way, and we act as if he never said them. We should bar Russia from the WTO, turf it out of the G8, and start disinviting it from other insitutions until it moderates its words and actions.
Bush’s reaction to the invasion of Georgia was weak and just invites further hostile acts from the Kremlin.
Jan 4, 2009 - 9:01 am 40. Gordon Chang:Frank, sometimes trade can undermine an authoritarian government. In the case of China, it is also undermining our democractic institutions.
I like the thrust of your comments. I would not bar trade with dictatoriships, but I would definitely encourage trade with democracies.
This is an important topic, so many thanks for raising it.
Jan 4, 2009 - 9:04 am 41. Gordon Chang:Lawrence Kohn, thank you for your encouragement. We definitely need to react to the growing ties between Moscow and Beijing.
Jan 4, 2009 - 9:06 am 42. Johnlss6489:There is no China, no CCP.——–At least as what you given definition to those words.
It is time to end all those comments and discuss over non-sense of Chinese issues with those terms and word system.
“Actually there is no CCP, they are a few Chinese who militarily overpower on majority Chinese, most of them are richer than your Wall street executives and your senators, their are sleeping with your politicians in one bed.”
“Your politician and reporters should tell you the truth, there is no CCP in China.There is no any government as you can understand or be educated to understand in West in China.I don’t see any. Many Chinese really hope there are many CCP, at least the principal of CCP was about sharing, and socialism, but after Mao gained China, it was simply a Empire, now still the same.”
All the terms and concepts in Chinese mind means different for our Chinese. There is one newly popular word “ShanZai”(山寨）,which could be used to understand Chinese mind today.
I don’t understand is that many Americans are fooled by their media that China is a CCP ruling nation called China, if we really are, then there will not be any corruptions ever in the government system.
Mr.Gordom Chang’s last comment is correct:
” Almost everyone in China is cynical.may not oppose their government, but they won’t support it either.”
Jan 4, 2009 - 9:56 am 43. Gordon Chang:Johnlss6489, your comments are a fascinating take on China. Thanks.
Jan 4, 2009 - 11:53 am 44. Mike T:Actually, it hasn’t. The vision I referred to was one that the Roman Emperor Constantine had when he was fighting to secure his hold against powerful usurpers. By that point, Rome’s army was filled with orthodox Christians, and Christians formed a very significant percentage of metropolitan Roman life. China is only now starting to reach the point where a Chinese Constantine can arise from the ranks of the aristocracy or military.
Jan 4, 2009 - 2:12 pm 45. Gordon Chang:Mike T, I see. Thanks for putting me straight on this.
Jan 4, 2009 - 6:15 pm 46. Johnlss6489:Mike T,Yes,Taiping rebellion resulted about 20 million deaths.
But The CCP dictors ruling over last 60 years in China resulted more than 80 million ab-normal deaths in China, and it is not end.
As Western History Book said, that China is a country with blood like rivers running and body as high as mountain high since we knew there is a China on this earth.
Terror and Lies; killing or be killed is our fortunate as Chinese.
Yes, You come with a good point about Christianity,it give us another way to killing and be killed,which we have no mind prepared for it!
Jan 4, 2009 - 11:38 pm 47. Jonesy55:I would disagree with the notion that any country or bloc that seeks to compete economically or politically with the US and maybe even one day overtake it should be treated as a malicious enemy. This is a perfectly natural state of affairs, I would like my country to be richer and more prosperous than others but that doesn’t mean that I hate those countries or wish them any ill.
What would be strange is if other parts of the world simply shrugged their shoulders and accepted that the US is and will always be the dominant power economically and politically and that there is nothing that they can or should do to catch up.
Jan 5, 2009 - 5:49 am 48. Gordon Chang:Jonesy55, I am not upset that China is competing with the United States. And China is not a “malicious enemy” for doing so. Yet we have to see what China is in fact doing. Beijing’s acts and even its words define it as an adversary, and we should treat it as such. Instead, we hear empty-headed words from Washington about the Chinese being “responsible stakeholders” when they are in fact not. All I am asking for is a realistic assessment of Chinese intentions.
Jan 5, 2009 - 2:07 pm 49. Mike T:Actually, it gives China a way to excise itself of Communism with less killing. Furthermore, it will give China new values which will hopefully innoculate the society against a resurgence of communism and similar totalitarian ideologies.
Jan 6, 2009 - 12:13 pm 50. Northern Light:The USA can’t go to war against China because it would lose.
1. You can’t buy a can opener these days that isn’t made in China. If they cut off the supply of can openers, the American people will starve.
2. The Chinese doesn’t need military force to destroy America, calling in all those loans would bankrupt the USA overnight.
O.K., I’m being a bit silly, but the fact remains; why would China cause harm to its best customers. That would be even more stupid and short-sighted than moving all industry to the country with the cheapest labour force. Oh wait, that’s already been done. China is a capitalist’s dream. No pesky unions. No environmental laws. China is a country that learned capitalism from Karl Marx. Unfortunately, Marx’s views on capitalism were nasty 19th Century stereotypes. China has embraced 19th Century capitalism right down to the child labour level.
Maybe if China continues down this road they will have the urban proletarian revolution that Marx predicted. It’s never happened before, Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam were all agrarian peasant revolts.
We should all stop being paranoid about Beijing and go back to being scared of Muslims with bad kidneys hiding in caves.
Jan 6, 2009 - 1:20 pm 51. michael:I find it odd that current US foreign policy culminating in the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 – with the consequent rise in terrorism, violent conflict, alienation and isolation of the US, use of torture and systematic dismantling of Constitutional protections, growing and shifting hostile forces from Iraq to Afghanistan and more dangerously to Pakistan, and exploding national debt – is something that people are actually arguing to extend. The British empire, unable to afford the great cost of maintaining its military bases on foreign soil, experienced a decline similar to what the US is currently experiencing. Is the US solution to print more money, Bretton Woods notwithstanding? Not only is the US auto manufacturing base in shambles, with an aging infrastructure and less than competent industrial leaders, but the educational system in math and science needs a jump-start which even if there is a 180 degree turnaround, will take a generation for the benefit to materialize, and the banking system is near collapse and its leaders seem unable to comprehend the extent and the nature of its toxic feature. There is no possible way that anyone can argue that Americans are “out of the woods” just yet, without even attempting to fix the fundamental problems in the banking, financial, industrial, educational, and infrastructural sectors.
At what point do responsible Americans shed their notion that the US is still at the height of its superpower status and realize that it cannot move forward in the 21st century without engaging the rest of the world. Yes the US can continue to project is unchallenged military power, but at great cost to the economy, industry, finance and competitive productivity of its populace. The 2008 voters apparently rejected the world view of “US against them” and want change. Rather than alienating with a unilateral world view, the US has to engage and prove it can remedy its problems before the rest of the world will follow.
Jan 6, 2009 - 7:28 pm 52. JerryRansom:The team discussed security and transportation issues with the Secretary of Homeland Security and local police jurisdictions.Authorities say as many as 3 million people could flood the National Mall for the event. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has picked the Bible that will be used to swear him into office. The former Illinois Senator will use the same Holy Book Abraham Lincoln used at his inauguration in 1861. Obama will be………..
Jan 7, 2009 - 5:55 am 53. Gordon Chang:Northern Light, the “Muslim with a bad kidney hiding in a cave” appears to be a spent force. China, on the other hand, is not.
Jan 7, 2009 - 4:10 pm 54. Gordon Chang:michael, yes, we’re in bad shape. Fortunately, our adversaries are in worse shape.
You won’t find me often defending the Bush administration, but the world–including the United States–would be in worse shape if we withdraw and refuse to exercise our power to preserve the international system. For example, what is the world going to look like with Russia invading neighbors and Iran employing nuclear blackmail? Every beat needs a cop, I am afraid to say.
Jan 7, 2009 - 4:17 pm 55. michael:I do not think anyone is pursuing any rational argument of what the world would be like without the US. The US over decades created the international financial system and is still the major if not superdominant player in the globalized economic system. No country or group of countries can replace either system within the near term. Although Tokyo, London, Shanghai and Hong Kong would like to replace New York as the world financial center in the short term, it cannot be done. Any fundamental global restructuring will take at least a decade and only with the confidence and cooperation of the rest of the world.
The US maintains the two systems on the basis of global confidence in the systems The world is changing so rapidly, however, that the post-WWII full-spectrum supremacy of the US is being altered in our lifetimes to accommodate a rising Asia. It is inevitable. Within this changing environment, the US actually needs China and other countries to finance its exploding debt. Continual printing by the US of dollars without undergoing structural domestic change would weaken the world financial system and lead to a loss of global confidence in the system. And to prevent collapse of the systems, the US is scheduling enormous expenditures for years to come.
Already Germany, Britain and China have declared they will not continue to invest in Wall Street institutions, for obvious reasons. Less vocal but equally serious countries like South Korea and Japan are undergoing systemic regional change and cooperation with China to reduce their dependence on the US-based global financial and economic systems. They have no choice. Their historic currency exchange agreements and regional alliance will cause other Asian nations to favor regional policies as well. They have no choice.
Whether the US continues to dominate the world systems is up to the US. At the risk of oversimplifying, the US can engage or alienate. Nations and regional alliances will react accordingly.
Jan 7, 2009 - 5:34 pm 56. kinch:A commenter above said that Chinese are universally cynical about their government and will not support (or oppose) it.
I think this is manifestly misleading. True, all Chinese are cynical about daily matters of local, provincial and national governance. Who wouldn’t be?
BUT, walk up to any random Chinese in the street and ask them about the Dalai Lama or what they think of Chen Shui Bian and be prepared for a diatribe of frothing at the mouth invective.
What Chinese thing of their government is irrelevant. The fact that Chinese are extremely nationalistic and xenophobic IS relevant.
Just my 2c worth.
Jan 7, 2009 - 10:52 pm 57. vivo:“President Nixon went to Beijing in 1972 to enlist the Chinese in the global struggle against the Soviet Union. If there was time for a cynical bargain with a totalitarian state, it was at that moment, when it looked as if we were losing to the Kremlin.”
Wasn’t Nixon talking to the Chinese WITHOUT preconditions at the time?
And right-wingers criticized Obama for just saying that . . .
Jan 7, 2009 - 10:59 pm 58. Northern Light:Dear Mr. Chang,
I think it’s nice that you read and respond to the comments made about your essays. I do not share your fear of Chinese aggression, here’s one reason why.
Name a military situation where China has emerged victorious. The Mongols conquered them with a few hundred thousand horsemen. The British overcame huge problems of geography to defeat the Chinese and ensure the freedom to sell opium. The Japanese weren’t defeated by the Chinese in World War Two. The Japanese were defeated by geography and the A bomb.
China might point to their stalemates in Korea in the 50s and Vietnam in the 70s as victories, but I am being generous calling them stalemates.
In fact, as I rack my brain all I can come up with as far as Chinese military victories are concerned is Tibet 500 years ago. This is not the track record of a dangerous belligerent state.
China has little military tradition. China has always strived to be the cultural center of the world but has had few if any military ambitions. Their folk lore has many legendary philosophers but no famous warriors.
But then again perhaps you feel that if China has abandoned Kung Fu Tzu on mercantilism it can buck the lack of a military tradition. But given the ferocity of America and the relative pacifism of China I would not worry about the Chinese.
Yesterday Larry Flint Asked for $5 billion to bail out America’s porn industry. If the American people don’t rush to support the USA’s last export to the world China will dominate the pornography industry. Now that’s something to worry about!
Jan 8, 2009 - 11:01 am 59. Gordon Chang:michael, much of what you say is correct, but I suspect attitudes will change once America recovers. And we will recover before others. We’re first into the downturn, and we will be the first out.
Jan 9, 2009 - 11:57 am 60. Gordon Chang:kinch, it’s all relevant if you’re talking about social stability. But when the issue is the continuation of Communist Party rule, nationalism and xenophobia may not be that important because then it will be an issue of one Chinese ruler versus another Chinese one.
Jan 9, 2009 - 12:00 pm 61. Gordon Chang:Northern Light, thanks.
What you say is important, but the new PLA is impressive. And although China for the past 1,000 years has been losing battles, we have to remember there is a succesful military tradition. After all, how did China get so big to begin with?
Jan 9, 2009 - 12:03 pm 62. Northern Light:How did China get so big?
My guess would be the Warring States period. A civil war that lasted 400 years before the Ch’in (often considered no more Chinese than the Hsung Nu (I’m not sure of the spelling, but they were northern barbarians circa. 209 B.C.) unified China. The Ch’in dynasty only lasted about a dozen years before it fell. China has been sacked over and over again. Their main defense against outside invaders has been to allow the invaders to conquer China and then assimilate them over the course of a few generation (examples would be the Mongols and Manchus).
China has traditionally been unified because the Yangtze and Yellow rivers run through the entire country and regions have had to co-operate for the sake of water management. That’s why China has been a unified territory that is as large as Europe.
Europe, by contrast has been at war within itself for centuries. This has created European cultures that are much more warlike than China has traditionally been.
I have no idea what successful military tradition you’re talking about. To say we must fear China because of the example of the Ch’in would be the same as saying we should fear the Italians because of the Roman Empire.
I’m assuming you know as much Chinese history and philosophy as I do (undergraduate degree at the University of Toronto) so if you can name one revered Chinese warrior I will name eight Chinese philosophers.
Jan 9, 2009 - 4:39 pm 63. kinch:Mr. Chang, I guess my main interest is not the continuation (or not) of CP rule in China. My interest as a Westerner, to be frank, is that China not become too big for its boots or engage in dangerous military adventurism – I am fond of Sausalito and Seattle, and it would be a shame to lose them (LA would be a toss up) because of a move on Taiwan due to (take your pick) (a) the Zhongnanhai Plonkers banging the drum to bolster their fading credibility or (b) some PLA Young Turks wishing to shake the tree.
In either case, there is a huge reservoir of ignorant, propaganda-fueled xenophobia waiting to be tapped by anyone cynical enough to do so.
The CP regime, for all its faults, *has* kept a lid on this – from a selfish desire for self-preservation.
I worry a lot about democratisation. In principle democracy is a wonderful thing. In practice, mass movement of peoples from the countryside to the cities, the advent of mass literacy and mass media to service same tends to drive entire populations insane by obsessing them with things like Alsace Lorraine (or, closer to home, The Washington Naval Treaty) – and we all know where that got us.
The democratisation of Europe was achieved at the cost of an ocean of blood – a lot of it not European. I do not wish to die in a nuclear wasteland so that 200 years hence Chinese can be where the French and Germans are today… and ironically peace in Europe has been achieved by the most complete and utter perversion of the ideal of Democracy under the EU blanket.
The CP has a foul history of murder and mayhem behind it. I just worry that the price of legitimacy for any replacement might be too much for the rest of us to bear. I am no Pangloss, but I am not sure we want this can of worms to be opened. No doubt you disagree, and I’d be interested to hear you argue how the CP might be replaced with something nicer – without another Yuan Shihkai, another Taiping Tianguo, or various other frightful unintended consequences.
On a slightly different topic, and one which you might be following more closely – it’s going to be interesting to see what happens at CNY – I suspect a lot of Guangdong factories are going to be firing and paying off (if lucky) their migrant worker employees with just enough time for them to get on the trains/buses to make it home for New Year. That way they won’t stick around in Dongguan or wherever and riot.
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:50 pm 64. Gordon Chang:Northern Light, China got large by conquest, and not all that conquest was by “foreigners.” You are right about China’s great thinkers in the past, of course.
The larger point, though, is China’s military modernization at the present moment. There are many more soldiers than philosophers in today’s China.
Jan 10, 2009 - 7:56 am 65. Gordon Chang:kinch, we have little influence over China in any event. Over the long run, China will surely have a vibrant democracy. In the short term, the next form of government could be just as horrible and even worse. Yet there will be no long-term improvement as long as the Communist Party is running things.
By the way, the Communist Party is responsible for resurgent nationalism and xenophobia. If you want someone to blame, try Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. They did a lot to stir the pot.
Jan 10, 2009 - 8:04 am 66. Johnlss6489:“A vibrant democracy in China”? I do not think so.
But “even worse” for sure.
Read Revelation 13:16,17. They already given mark to all Chinese, and an digitalized monitoring and control system is almost at its final stage of full application.
Looking at their new campaign to clean internet,you can realize what it is meant for our Chinese in the verse: Anyone without mark, no buy and sell.
We already have a Digitalized ID card system and no one is allowed to use internet without Identified your personal ID,and in some major cities,such as Beijing, you have to be photo-ed When you want to use internet on internet cafe.
“Brave New World” is coming to every countries on this earth.
How should we to describe the best society on this earth?
It will not be called Democracy or dictatorship anymore ,but A digitalized or not society in the nearest future.
The hardware parts of this society is almost ready, with introducing of US100 -200/unit or less Netbook from China from End of Last year.
The software system to apply them? It is all ready and tested in China over last 15 years,with the help of Western IT giant.
Now the most advanced public application of monitoring and control system has been set up in China.
All those evil idea to control and manipulate individuals will have a great a Achievement in China,even though non of them,such as Communist ,Industrialization,globlization ,digital filtering and monitoring ,etc are originated from Chinese mind.
Jian and Hu just the same individuals as our fellow Chinese,they are the same slavery minded as our Chinese. Non of those dictators have any brain,but animal nature to keep themselves in power .Non of those dictatorship figures will not performance as worse as those evils happen and happing in China ,without the cooperation and participation of all our Chinese.
No one should have be optimized for the future of this earth, the darkest and worses days is coming.
There will be “peace ,harmony and stable” all over the world,but without any moral justice, families, and real care and love between individuals, no any personal feelings about others,lost tracing on family relationships history , and worship only the authority ,the most powerful ,….
Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ is coming.
I bet that our Chinese will never have a Democracy society on this earth, till Jesus come again, and end of the world and time.
http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=2787
http://www.youpai.org/read.php?id=2797
Jan 11, 2009 - 9:03 pm 67. Brandi Bennett:Mr. Chang, I’m coming to your work a bit late here as I recently picked up your book “The Coming Collapse of China” at the local library because of my intersecting interests in China, intellectual property, and the law. It’s been an interesting read so far (and the predictions of the book echo eerily in our current economic crisis)- I’m interested in your current stance eight years after the publication of the book.
Regarding this particular discussion thread, a reassessment of our foreign policy regarding every nation we engage with is not something we can ignore. But given China’s continued reluctance to equip its people with the infrastructure and ability to follow the rule of law and its reticence to conform to international norms, conventions and standards despite bald-faced promises that it does indeed do so, a reassessment of our foreign policy regarding China is past overdue. Historically, trade relations between the US and China in the 90s have been likened to a game of international chicken with each threatening and backing down and only watered down compromises being reached. The time is long overdue to stop playing Chicken and set down some hard lines regarding cooperation with international standards.
Regarding revolution and the fall of the CCP, given the repression of the media and the internet within China, I harbor serious doubts that any reform will be internally driven. However, China continues to export its intellectual talent to foreign universities and many of them have refused to return to China. Further, the children of Chinese intellectuals driven out of the country during Cultural Revolution (or political dissidents who skipped the country at any other time) have been educated in foreign universities and employed in international corporations, cooperatives and organizations. Point being, I suspect any reform will be when these people return and seize control of their country.
Finally, regarding China’s military dominance or lack thereof, it appears to me to be a matter of military technology. China was, at one time, ascendant technologically, but was dominated in recent history because it fell behind in terms of technological capabilities. I suspect a large measure of that is China’s relative lack of a navy during the colonial/expansionist periods of Western Civilization. Considering the amount of money China has poured into its military and tech sectors, it’s not inconceivable that the gap in technology has been closed or even eliminated. And China certainly has the underutilized manpower to dominate any western nation on that front.
May 2, 2009 - 2:06 pm