Political Crossfire Forums

[Communalknighthood]

A lot has been said recently about China’s emergence as a superpower. However, little has been said in the media about what effects their prosperity could have on the world at large. A stronger China poses many questions for the emerging world order? What will this mean for the west? What does it mean for democracy?

The current world is undergoing dramatic change. The political and economic supremacy of western nations is being outdone in favour of emerging economies, lead by China of course. The resurgence of the developing world could lead to a greater level of equity between west and east or north and south. But China’s emergence can be problematic and could have serious consequences for every region. It is this which needs to be explored more thoroughly.

First of all, what does the emergence of China mean for human rights and democracy? China has a shoddy record with both. It would be unreasonable to assume that they would promote these virtues to the world. Its strategic economy works against the emerging middle class in the country which strives to achieve democracy and improve its appalling human rights record. This middle class can not rely on outside pressure from the United States, Europe and the United Nations because the more China grows the more the international economy will rely on its trade. Hence, human rights and democracy will be lost in the shuffle.

Second, the nationalist movements inside China deserve greater attention. Semi-autonomous Taiwan and Tibet have long received sympathy from the international community when the United States and other western countries were eager to condemn the Soviet Union and their allies. But since its market reforms began in the late 1970s, the west has excused many of China’s policies towards these two regions. Taiwan has shown popular support for independence, yet the international community is more concerned with trade with the Chinese mainland.

In a strategic standpoint economically, the growth in outsourcing to China has had a serious effect on western markets. Since the 1973 oil crisis, the world economy has been defined along the ethics of neo-liberals, which encourages a reduced amount of government intervention in the economy. This has lead to the growth in power of the private corporate system. At the same time, emerging economies like China were liberalizing and encouraging investment and outsourcing into their borders. The large western conglomerates were drawn to China because of its low wages and lenient labour rules. This lead to an influx of jobs from the western world to China is particular, harming the economy and living standards of western countries. This is perhaps the greatest consequence of free trade and globalization.

At the same time, the global multi-national corporations, which mainly come from the west are making record profits while employment in the west remains high and growth rates only as much as a third of China’s. According to The Economist, corporate profits of the G7 countries have increased from 11 per cent of GDP in 1980 to 14 per cent. In 2004 America’s after-tax profits rose to a 75 year high in terms of GDP. And thanks to President George W. Bush’s corporate tax cuts, corporate profits rose an amazing 60 per cent between 2002 and 2005, while wage income has increased only a paltry 10 per cent. Clearly, free trade and China’s rise as an economic engine need to be re-examined.

In conclusion, the international community has been too complacent in its dealings with China. Let’s not of course declare economic warfare against the largest country on earth, they have as much right to prosperity as anyone. Yet, it’s troubling to think that the rise of a great power should come at the expense of so many people. A nation’s prosperity should not impede a person’s right to human rights, democracy, and self-determination.

Avaliable at: http://www.communalknighthood.blogspot.com/

[Poon]

You must understand, that when Western nations, especially the USA, criticize China about its human rights record, it is not with the welfare of Chinese citizens in mind. The Wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world supposedly provides its own citizens with more luxuries than any other nation in the world. You say China treats its own citizens poorly and use this as a gauge of how China would treat the world. Yet, lets take American/Foreign relations into perspective.

The morality of invading Iraq has been exhaustively debated. Americans generally see 1 American life worth more than 1000 lives of foreigners. 2 - 3000 Americans died on Sept. 11, 2001, 3000 more American soldiers died in Iraq, yet few Americans would be willing to mourn or even acknowledge the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqis, many of whom were non-combatants. This does not even count casualties in Afghanistan, though many inside and outside of USA views Afghanistan as justified.

I thank you for this comment: Quote: Let’s not of course declare economic warfare against the largest country on earth, they have as much right to prosperity as anyone.
....Yet, it’s troubling to think that the rise of a great power should come at the expense of so many people. A nation’s prosperity should not impede a person’s right to human rights, democracy, and self-determination.

Human rights, democracy, self-determination are sweet ideals, yet, a nations prosperity has always come at the price of sacrifice from the masses, whether its the citizens of your own country, or the citizens of another...

[PhilDing]

a nations prosperity has always come at the price of sacrifice from the masses, whether its the citizens of your own country, or the citizens of another...



YES.

[anti-communist]

Communalknighthood wrote:


First of all, what does the emergence of China mean for human rights and democracy? China has a shoddy record with both. It would be unreasonable to assume that they would promote these virtues to the world. Its strategic economy works against the emerging middle class in the country which strives to achieve democracy and improve its appalling human rights record. This middle class can not rely on outside pressure from the United States, Europe and the United Nations because the more China grows the more the international economy will rely on its trade. Hence, human rights and democracy will be lost in the shuffle.


Avaliable at: http://www.communalknighthood.blogspot.com/ Agree ,and we are not pure economy animals ,we must focus on both economy and human rights, especially moral and justice

[anti-communist]

And I find your blogs(articles) are interesting and attractive ,very professional

[aznninjahitman]

Ah, it's been a while since I've been on these forums. Twinkie, nice to see you still here. :)

Firstly, I must applaud your opening post, and say I will be reading your blog now that I know of it. Now for my take on the matter. ;)

We discussed/debated some of these issues, to varying extents, in my Foreign Policy class at Princeton. So firstly, one must define superpower. Is a superpower, as the traditional definition states, any state that is preeminent miliatarily and socioeconomically? The United States, by any means is (or was, depending on if you believe in the falling-empire view). China - not so much, and many believe China will seek to avoid superpower-stature and the annoying responsibilities that accompany it.

China is, historically, the preeminent socio-cultural influence in the Southeast Asian region. Han China stretched from the Byzantine (ie Eastern Roman) empire's eastern borders, to Vietnam and the rest of Indochina and the northeast parts of India, to the Siberian/Kamchatkan region. The smaller nations that exist there will, of course, be fearful of Chinese hegemony in the region, and expansionist reclaimist dreams, so they will probably not wait until possible trouble begins and try to preempt any perceived moves by China.

About democracy, I have no idea what I feel about its introduction to China... of course with the western ideals you and I grew up with, we both most likely favor a representative government of some sort.

The middle class in China is a rapidly growing demographic, and represents a lot of economic power within and outside the country. Most likely, they have the potential to have a lot of influence with the government, but I'm not sure if they use it. Outside groups have less say, because the Chinese government represents stability to many people, and as is true of almost every nation, foreign (particularly European) influence can be seen as colonialism or imperialism, or "foreign meddling." Memories run very deep - particularly so in non-western nations.

Containing China in any sense is near impossible - one must hope China contains itself so its growth is sustainable, and permanent. China represents such a large market and producer, and is so tied to much of the world's economy, that we/it effectively hold much of the world's overall economy in our grasp. We didn't put it there, the world did; however, any move by China adverse enough to inspire some form of punitive or economic measures aimed at reversing its maneuver would equate to economic disaster for China as well. Chinese interests hold rougly one sixth of America's national debt in their control - this represents a hefty amount of leverage, but a large amount of risk as well (and America, on merit of its military, could posture and make grumpy noises until China gave in or moved more directly). In effect, China is so intertwined with other nations that any measure it took to cripple the world would likely cripple it as well (disregarding asymmetric warfare)...

...I hope that was all lucid, because I'm in a hurry and I have homework to do. :) Cheers. Please tell me if you have conflicting information (I didn't have time to cite anything or really research this - I'm working on memory and some conjecture/analysis), and help me develop any arguments unless they're that bad...

[Poon]

Communalknighthood wrote:
...
In a strategic standpoint economically, the growth in outsourcing to China has had a serious effect on western markets. Since the 1973 oil crisis, the world economy has been defined along the ethics of neo-liberals, which encourages a reduced amount of government intervention in the economy. This has lead to the growth in power of the private corporate system. At the same time, emerging economies like China were liberalizing and encouraging investment and outsourcing into their borders. The large western conglomerates were drawn to China because of its low wages and lenient labour rules. This lead to an influx of jobs from the western world to China is particular, harming the economy and living standards of western countries. This is perhaps the greatest consequence of free trade and globalization.

At the same time, the global multi-national corporations, which mainly come from the west are making record profits while employment in the west remains high and growth rates only as much as a third of China’s. According to The Economist, corporate profits of the G7 countries have increased from 11 per cent of GDP in 1980 to 14 per cent. In 2004 America’s after-tax profits rose to a 75 year high in terms of GDP. And thanks to President George W. Bush’s corporate tax cuts, corporate profits rose an amazing 60 per cent between 2002 and 2005, while wage income has increased only a paltry 10 per cent. Clearly, free trade and China’s rise as an economic engine need to be re-examined.

....
It would appear from the above 2 passages that you posted, China's economic development is having more of a positive effect than negative on the economy of western nations. Therefore, it is no wonder that those in Washington D.C. does not pressure China about its human rights record and superficially supports the One - China policy. The U.S.A. is very cunning in how it dealt with the Taiwan issue. On the one hand, Americans make billions from sale of high-tech weapons to Taiwan to counter China, yet on the surface, Americans are in "support" of Taiwan's return to China. European nations and the U.S.A. have historically treated China the way a tamer treats a lion. They do not wish the government of China to collapse and die, for that would cause unforeseeable ripple effects across the globe. Yet, the sleeping lion seems to have awaken, and may prove too difficult to control.

[wildchild]

PhilDing wrote: a nations prosperity has always come at the price of sacrifice from the masses, whether its the citizens of your own country, or the citizens of another...



YES.
these words remaind me Chirman Mao .
How many more sacrifices do you want and what will you say if you will one of thes who will be sacrificed.

[dolphin]

To reiterate Tibet and Taiwan issue without even one second of boring sense, is one of the most effective ways that might slow down CHina's development.
The best answer to those buzz is to flip the bird.
We just do where we see fit under the commitment that we will not hurt anyone and damage other's benefits. China has neever urge anyone to accept communism, why the hell you do?

[Poon]

wildchild wrote: PhilDing wrote: a nations prosperity has always come at the price of sacrifice from the masses, whether its the citizens of your own country, or the citizens of another...

YES.
these words remaind me Chirman Mao .
How many more sacrifices do you want and what will you say if you will one of thes who will be sacrificed.
No, those words are just facts. When I say sacrifice, I don't mean having your life prematurely ended. The common workers who labor in the fields and the factories do sacrifice for their country, as do the soldiers who take up arms to defend it. Or do you think that Cars grow on trees and houses just sprout out of the ground?

[aznninjahitman]

Very true... sacrifice is not only death, sacrifice can entail sacrificing time, labor, thought, etc. I think he's looking at it with only Mao in mind, after that initial sentence, and Mao is rather famous for saying "A small number died," when told of the millions of dead in the wake of the Great Leap Forward...

Parents sacrifice for their children. Young adults sacrifice for the future. Teachers sacrifice for the community.

So do you think China will seek superpower status, or will China avoid it, or will China merely be content with what comes and seek to gain wealth and status and grow?

[Poon]

aznninjahitman wrote: Very true... sacrifice is not only death, sacrifice can entail sacrificing time, labor, thought, etc. I think he's looking at it with only Mao in mind, after that initial sentence, and Mao is rather famous for saying "A small number died," when told of the millions of dead in the wake of the Great Leap Forward...

Parents sacrifice for their children. Young adults sacrifice for the future. Teachers sacrifice for the community.

So do you think China will seek superpower status, or will China avoid it, or will China merely be content with what comes and seek to gain wealth and status and grow? People talk about Superpower status as if that is what every nation should aim for. However, I don't see it that way.
Look at the USA, the USA has the most advanced military hardware on Earth. Her Navy patrols the seas, acting as the big stick to enforce American national interests. American economy and industrial might is virtually unmatched, if you discount the enormous National debt. However, a hegemonic power causes distrust and animosity from peoples of other nations. The question is, if you are a global power, do you wish to keep the peoples of other ethnicity under your boot as 2nd class peoples or do you wish to be viewed as a benevolent Overlord? Of course the USA seeks the latter option, however recent foreign policy has damaged American reputation.

Although China does not have the badge of a Global Superpower, she undoubtedly has been an economic power for quite some time. It is almost impossible to shop anywhere without finding a Made in China label on some consumer goods. Even well known Korean, Japanese electronic brands have a Made in China label on it. Being an economic power requires the labor of ordinary Chinese citizens. Being a Superpower undoubtedly also carries its own burdens.