This morning I read a letter in the FT from a Chinese woman living in Hong Kong that says, along the lines, that China is not interested in being a global leader, not interested in any action that is driven by "values" and is instead focused only on an "exchange of needs" driven by national interest. And so, she continued, with Europe and Japan having problems of their own, America will be without any real allies and should therefore retreat from global leadership.
I am uncomfortable with her conclusion. Firstly, I think leadership abhors a vacuum - if America stays home there will be some power (even if its not China) will be more than willing to fill it. Secondly, I dare say that in the scope of history America has (largely) been benign power. From a historical perspective of the dominant empires through the ages, it says something that people can openly complain about America - or even work to undermine America - and not worry about their families being enslaved, imprisoned or slaughtered.
But her view on China actually caused me even more discomfort, mainly because I worry it has some semblence of reality.
My observation is that China has a classic international policy i.e. there are no allies/enemies, only national interest; heavily leavened with a strong emphasis on national sovereignty (as a proxy for absolute internal control by the State/Party), the effects of which makes China popular to smaller countries or weaker governments because China treats all sovereign states as equals and without questioning anyone's political legitimacy so long as they are in power. China stands up for others rarely and only when it serves as a proxy for its own issues such as national sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs.
China is used to being an authoritarian empire but is less adept at being a team player. Without question China is a real player in many arenas of the world - especially in economics and trade - but it picks and chooses only those where it stands to benefit. It invests reluctantly in the responsibilities to the 'global system' or in global institutions makes it possible. However its dealings, while shrewed and often effective, often reflects purely a power relationship. Where it really matters, China does not seek to build coalitions or institutions rather it would rely on its own bargaining position and power.
In many ways, this is a reflection of reality that there are limits to China's resources and ability to contribute. Premier Wen's statements that China 'is a still a developing country and we should be sober minded". But I suspect even when it is more powerful, it will still be more comfortable dealing with power relationships than being a team player, either in concert with other global powers or within global frameworks or institutions especially one based on rules and law.
I suspect China is fine with global systems so long as it is winning and hear praises but it will have a hard time accepting criticism of "peers" or be subject to limitations under a rules based system. China will say its a question of sovereignty but at its heart China has not learnt to share power or responsibilities. For China, one is either a loyal supplicant/vassel state or a rival power to be deftly managed and defeated. I am not sure Chinese statecraft has a tradition of dealing with a multi-polar world with "peer" states; much less be willing to give up benefits in order to protect and respect the rights of the weaker party purely on the ground of righteousness (otherwise known as "values").
It took the major powers in Europe many centuries of warfare to learn co-existance and cooperation, even though in Europe no power was ever dominant since the Roman Empire hence has a deeper tradition in dealing with a multi-polar world of diplomacy and compromise.
I am concerned that the rise of China, unless accompanied by a willingness to strengthen the global system, will weaken global institutions and international governance - which was after all founded on Western ideals of equality, fairplay, democracy, respect for rules including acceptance of majority decisions after open debate.
It would be tragic if the arrivial of the world's oldest continuous civilization on the world stage will be to set the clock back on human progress and to a less enlightened age.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Soldiers of the Republic
Let me make a slight diversion before getting back to the topic of "Chinese History Revisited".
Today, 11th November, is Veteran's Day in the US. In Commonwealth countries, its Rememberance Day to commemorate the end of World War I.
Earlier this year, my office moved to Madison Avenue just one block away from Fifth Avenue where the Veteran's Day Parade is held in New York City. So I had the opportunity to get my first glimpse of the parade a little while ago.
Well, parades happen all the time in the city so this is not a big deal. As military parades go this is a relatively low key affair compared to parades in other parts of the world. But what struck me was the spirit of the parade which embodies the values that I admire in the United States of America.
First of all, the parade was a civic event and not an "formal" or "official" event: yes, there were troops marching but also school bands, beauty queens, hobbyists (like vintage car enthusiasts and Harley-Davidson bikers) and various veteran groups of old comrades who used to fight together, veterans who now work together (like a band of subway workers), veterans who now study together (such as a group from Columbia University) etc. Old soldiers came out in their old uniforms marching with the old comrades. Families of veterans (who died? too old to come out?) came out waving photographs of their man in uniform. There is a strong display of diversity and respect for self-organized groups and grass root initiative. I got a sense that the parade belonged to everyone no matter how "unimportant". The atmosphere was relaxed, informal and celebratory. By the way, although there is a small dias for dignitaries and VIPs, the real place for the VIPs in an American parade is leading and marching (or at least riding along in a car) in the parade itself. That's what the mayor did today.
Moreover, I was reminded of the values of a republic as opposed to the state. The parade was not to glorify the state or the military power, it is to show appreciation for the individual citizens in uniform; in active service, in the national guards, in the reserves and veterans. They come in all shapes and sizes and colours. They marched without weapons. The troops smiled and waved as they marched, as if they were sportsmen returning from the Olympics. It made me think of the classical notion of the soldier as a noble sacrifice and solemn responsibility that go hand in hand with the rights and priviledges of being a "citizen" of a republic; and not just a self-less and unquestioning tool of the state.
And then there was the show of appreciation and affection for the troops that is uncommon. The crowd lining the streets waved handmade signs that says: "Thank You", "We Salute Our Troops" etc. The soldiers both active and retired were greeted with applause and cheers by the crowds. I saw a man wish a soldier good luck as he march by and the soldier nodded and said thanks. When a large flag was carries past, people clapped and saluted. Nothing suggested it was anything but genuine or sponteneous.
In the city today, I see many soldiers going about proudly in their dress uniforms, some with wives or girlfriends at their elbows. In many pubs tonight, any one showing up in uniform gets a free drink. For me, its a reminder of the real source of America's strength.
---- update 15 minutes later ---
This speech yesterday is widely reported but not widely appreciated. I just read it and found it to be very good. I was most taken by the passage, "....instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God." Note his remarks that addresses the slain soldiers as individuals. And how it tries to explain the value of military service in a liberal democracy in times of plenty.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/11/10/obamas_speech_at_fort_hood_the.html
Today, 11th November, is Veteran's Day in the US. In Commonwealth countries, its Rememberance Day to commemorate the end of World War I.
Earlier this year, my office moved to Madison Avenue just one block away from Fifth Avenue where the Veteran's Day Parade is held in New York City. So I had the opportunity to get my first glimpse of the parade a little while ago.
Well, parades happen all the time in the city so this is not a big deal. As military parades go this is a relatively low key affair compared to parades in other parts of the world. But what struck me was the spirit of the parade which embodies the values that I admire in the United States of America.
First of all, the parade was a civic event and not an "formal" or "official" event: yes, there were troops marching but also school bands, beauty queens, hobbyists (like vintage car enthusiasts and Harley-Davidson bikers) and various veteran groups of old comrades who used to fight together, veterans who now work together (like a band of subway workers), veterans who now study together (such as a group from Columbia University) etc. Old soldiers came out in their old uniforms marching with the old comrades. Families of veterans (who died? too old to come out?) came out waving photographs of their man in uniform. There is a strong display of diversity and respect for self-organized groups and grass root initiative. I got a sense that the parade belonged to everyone no matter how "unimportant". The atmosphere was relaxed, informal and celebratory. By the way, although there is a small dias for dignitaries and VIPs, the real place for the VIPs in an American parade is leading and marching (or at least riding along in a car) in the parade itself. That's what the mayor did today.
Moreover, I was reminded of the values of a republic as opposed to the state. The parade was not to glorify the state or the military power, it is to show appreciation for the individual citizens in uniform; in active service, in the national guards, in the reserves and veterans. They come in all shapes and sizes and colours. They marched without weapons. The troops smiled and waved as they marched, as if they were sportsmen returning from the Olympics. It made me think of the classical notion of the soldier as a noble sacrifice and solemn responsibility that go hand in hand with the rights and priviledges of being a "citizen" of a republic; and not just a self-less and unquestioning tool of the state.
And then there was the show of appreciation and affection for the troops that is uncommon. The crowd lining the streets waved handmade signs that says: "Thank You", "We Salute Our Troops" etc. The soldiers both active and retired were greeted with applause and cheers by the crowds. I saw a man wish a soldier good luck as he march by and the soldier nodded and said thanks. When a large flag was carries past, people clapped and saluted. Nothing suggested it was anything but genuine or sponteneous.
In the city today, I see many soldiers going about proudly in their dress uniforms, some with wives or girlfriends at their elbows. In many pubs tonight, any one showing up in uniform gets a free drink. For me, its a reminder of the real source of America's strength.
---- update 15 minutes later ---
This speech yesterday is widely reported but not widely appreciated. I just read it and found it to be very good. I was most taken by the passage, "....instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God." Note his remarks that addresses the slain soldiers as individuals. And how it tries to explain the value of military service in a liberal democracy in times of plenty.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/11/10/obamas_speech_at_fort_hood_the.html
Saturday, November 7, 2009
What China Reveres Today? Part II
Most mainland Chinese simply do not have access to alternative views. I also don't agree that people who are not used to critical views are able to discern propaganda when they see it especially one that is disseminated through soft culture means such as film.
Talking about the literature in china, there are not too many that accentuate modern values. Bao Ching Tian is a story of a justice and not a justice system. Shi Ji is critical but successive generations of historian failed to live up to it. This is evident with the successive 24/25 official chronicle of dynastic history.
Analect is not taught in school any longer. Further, Analect promotes benovalent governance (ren) and not democracy; Analect teaches obligation (忠孝) and not rights and not interest; Analect focuses on code of conduct (li) and not system.
The various wu xia novels amplifies wu and xia behaviours which are today conducts mainly outside the legal bound. The concept of yi promoted in these novels could be easily manipulated to downplay the neccessity to observe law and regulation.
The worst is that there are too many of writers in the mainland who were doctrinated by an education that is neither inclusive nor objective. Even if they are not doctrinated they are influenced subconsciously from the communist perspective of things.
The few critical writers and reporter are cowed and few got their view aired through media. For instance, the last two books that I spoke about are both banned in China. Even with the almost omnipresent internet is censored in mainland. This is just not good. But this is the status quo!
With that it leaves the majority of 1.3 billion Chinese subservient without critical thinking. This is a vicious cycle with a government sets upon restraining freedom of expression which in turn produces a bunch of uncritical and passive subjects and not a group of citizen seeking to actively advancing rights and interest.
Be fair, even the few of us who are fortunate enough to be informed simply have no guts to compromise our comfort our liberty to fight against a high-handed government intend to perpetuate in power. That's the irony!
Talking about the literature in china, there are not too many that accentuate modern values. Bao Ching Tian is a story of a justice and not a justice system. Shi Ji is critical but successive generations of historian failed to live up to it. This is evident with the successive 24/25 official chronicle of dynastic history.
Analect is not taught in school any longer. Further, Analect promotes benovalent governance (ren) and not democracy; Analect teaches obligation (忠孝) and not rights and not interest; Analect focuses on code of conduct (li) and not system.
The various wu xia novels amplifies wu and xia behaviours which are today conducts mainly outside the legal bound. The concept of yi promoted in these novels could be easily manipulated to downplay the neccessity to observe law and regulation.
The worst is that there are too many of writers in the mainland who were doctrinated by an education that is neither inclusive nor objective. Even if they are not doctrinated they are influenced subconsciously from the communist perspective of things.
The few critical writers and reporter are cowed and few got their view aired through media. For instance, the last two books that I spoke about are both banned in China. Even with the almost omnipresent internet is censored in mainland. This is just not good. But this is the status quo!
With that it leaves the majority of 1.3 billion Chinese subservient without critical thinking. This is a vicious cycle with a government sets upon restraining freedom of expression which in turn produces a bunch of uncritical and passive subjects and not a group of citizen seeking to actively advancing rights and interest.
Be fair, even the few of us who are fortunate enough to be informed simply have no guts to compromise our comfort our liberty to fight against a high-handed government intend to perpetuate in power. That's the irony!
What China Reveres Today
An interesting way of looking into the question you posed is to look at the films produced in the mainland which in turn reflect what the censor is endorsing and what is not. The censor is obviously the powerful CCP propaganda commission.
At one time around the turn of the milenium, the various Qing emperors were chronicled in positive light against what we were once taught - racist, brutal and etc.
Kangxi was portrayed to have unified the modern China against the various rebelions never mind that some were led by the Han like the Zheng in Taiwan and Wu in Yuanan.
In another series, Yongzheng was credited to have clean up the corrupted bureacracy never mind that he launched brutal purge on scholars critical of his regime; the same goes to Qianlong who was credited to consolidate the empire never mind that his regime marked the decline of the chinese civilization.
These Qing's historical drama was followed by various series on Wudi, Taizhong (Li Shiming), Taizu (Zhu yuanchang)and others.
The message through these emperor-centric series is clearly one for unified China and that the central government is more partial to the peoples againist the corrupted local government or the renegade warlord. (this justify the need for a strong central government). Today, wee see lot of aggrieved Chinese petitioned their grievance through adminisgtrative means in Beijing rather than resorting it via the legal system. This of course point to the disfunctional legal system in which the judges are not regarded as independent. This is another story.
I recall a particular series (Towards the Republic, literal translation) that gave a revionist view on the turn of events during the 19th century. This series was the first attempt made to reproach the KMT linking up the two republic to SYS.
This happened in early 2000s. From then on until the most recent film "The Founding of the Republic", the theme remains the same. This film is a romanticized version of history where Mao was invitably portrayed in the most heroic and magnificent manner and Chiang was unusually for a mainland film portrayed as one who was a victim rather than a leader of corruption and incompetency by his own administration.
During the same time, critical literature or investigative report are constantly being scrutinized and the reporter.writer at time were harassed if not sacked from position. Activists or human right lawyers were beaten up and at time jailed for leaking secret or some made-up charges.
No question, the reverence today is still tipped in favor of the official preference - unification and central government centered at CCP rule.
There is still not loosening of censor over literatures, film production critical to the CCP rule. I only hope to see one film chronicling the misdeed of Mao or the tragedy of Cultural Revolution or the disaster of Great Leap Forward, will I believe that China is heading to the right direction.
The fact remains that the continuous adoration to Mao as seen in the recent national parade does not augur well for a free and democratic China. What will be a historical moment of China transformation is the the moment when Mao's portrait is taken off the Tiananmen and the RMB, that's the day signifiying real and meaningful reform.
To conclude, CCP is more of Qin than Zhou and more Han-Tang than Song. Having said this, China must depart from even Zhou and Song and align herself more with the universal values. The claim of Chinese characteristic is just an excuse to disassociate with democracy, human right and constitutionalism.
I would like to think that copying the USA,a continental system, to China which is pretty much a continent itself, will do more good than the present form of unitary structure. I will leave this discussion to another day.
At one time around the turn of the milenium, the various Qing emperors were chronicled in positive light against what we were once taught - racist, brutal and etc.
Kangxi was portrayed to have unified the modern China against the various rebelions never mind that some were led by the Han like the Zheng in Taiwan and Wu in Yuanan.
In another series, Yongzheng was credited to have clean up the corrupted bureacracy never mind that he launched brutal purge on scholars critical of his regime; the same goes to Qianlong who was credited to consolidate the empire never mind that his regime marked the decline of the chinese civilization.
These Qing's historical drama was followed by various series on Wudi, Taizhong (Li Shiming), Taizu (Zhu yuanchang)and others.
The message through these emperor-centric series is clearly one for unified China and that the central government is more partial to the peoples againist the corrupted local government or the renegade warlord. (this justify the need for a strong central government). Today, wee see lot of aggrieved Chinese petitioned their grievance through adminisgtrative means in Beijing rather than resorting it via the legal system. This of course point to the disfunctional legal system in which the judges are not regarded as independent. This is another story.
I recall a particular series (Towards the Republic, literal translation) that gave a revionist view on the turn of events during the 19th century. This series was the first attempt made to reproach the KMT linking up the two republic to SYS.
This happened in early 2000s. From then on until the most recent film "The Founding of the Republic", the theme remains the same. This film is a romanticized version of history where Mao was invitably portrayed in the most heroic and magnificent manner and Chiang was unusually for a mainland film portrayed as one who was a victim rather than a leader of corruption and incompetency by his own administration.
During the same time, critical literature or investigative report are constantly being scrutinized and the reporter.writer at time were harassed if not sacked from position. Activists or human right lawyers were beaten up and at time jailed for leaking secret or some made-up charges.
No question, the reverence today is still tipped in favor of the official preference - unification and central government centered at CCP rule.
There is still not loosening of censor over literatures, film production critical to the CCP rule. I only hope to see one film chronicling the misdeed of Mao or the tragedy of Cultural Revolution or the disaster of Great Leap Forward, will I believe that China is heading to the right direction.
The fact remains that the continuous adoration to Mao as seen in the recent national parade does not augur well for a free and democratic China. What will be a historical moment of China transformation is the the moment when Mao's portrait is taken off the Tiananmen and the RMB, that's the day signifiying real and meaningful reform.
To conclude, CCP is more of Qin than Zhou and more Han-Tang than Song. Having said this, China must depart from even Zhou and Song and align herself more with the universal values. The claim of Chinese characteristic is just an excuse to disassociate with democracy, human right and constitutionalism.
I would like to think that copying the USA,a continental system, to China which is pretty much a continent itself, will do more good than the present form of unitary structure. I will leave this discussion to another day.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Revisiting Chinese History - Xiao Jiansheng
Chinese History - A Revisit, a banned book in mainland China, critically reviews the Chinese History from her mythical foundation from Pangu to the present day of the CCP's rule.
The writer, Xiao Jianzheng gave an elaborate and at time repetitive account as to why human right, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law failed to develop in China even though there were several opportunities in the the 4 millennia of history.
Xiao gave generous credit to the Zhou Dynasty and the Spring and Autumn Period for allowing an atmosphere of relative freedom to the peoples then. I was surprise to learn that there were then many practices that requires the ruler to defer to the "Guo Ren" (arguably the closest concept is citizen as opposed to the general subject who have no political rights).
He was highly critical of Qin Shihuang, Han Wudi, the Yuan Mongol, the Ming's Zhu Yuanzhang and the Machu Qing for imposing a dictatorial, illiberal and oppressive regime.
He complaint that the Legal School of Thought for the largest part of Chinese history was the various dynasty ruling philosophy with the Confucianism co-opted to legitimize the heavenly mandate. The imposition of brutal penalty by killing indiscriminately the offender's family members simply by association or massacring the defeated soldiers or civilians after conquest was a constant feature of the Chinese history.
The respect for life and the mercy for the weak are absent in larger part of the Chinese history and are not regarded as virtue but seen as a weakness. There maybe literature recorded the suffering and poverty of the peoples but none were critical to scrutinize the rulers. None offered a rival ideology or political doctrine to challenge the status quo. All dynasty were established by and large by the concept of replacing the heavenly mandate except that of the racist Yuan Mongol.
Surprising he gave raft review of the Song even though the Song was regarded generally as the weakest of all dynasty in the Chinese history. Xiao's justification vest in the Song's founding philosophy in governing the country with civility and humanity and that in turn allows mercantilism and high culture to flourish as witnessed by the quantity of finished goods and literature, poem and painting unearthed.
With the end of Song at the end of the genocidal Yuan Mongol, it also ended the Chinese civilization which once honored self integrity, respect life, relative equality for the woman, merciful of the aged, orphan, widows and the sick, promote mercantilism and literature.
What became the subsequent Chinese civilization are best exemplified by the values promoted by the classical novels of the Three Kingdoms and the Water Margin. The violence committed by the various heroes against many innocent was not condemned. The practice of camaraderie akin to gansterism is worshiped and not despised. The conduct out of legal bound is not criticized but regarded as loyalty to the clans and the family. These negative values together with the authoritarianism inherited from the earlier authoritarian dynasty became the mainstream vices into the present generation.
Xiao also analyzed the structure of power of the government. The earlier dynasty divided the power between that of the ruler and the prime minister. However the Ming destroyed the prime ministerial office with the power soley vested in the ruler which was then usurped by the eunuch or empress without check and balance. The Qing continued with the practice without the prime minister.
Coming close to the modern era, Xiao was also critical of the conduct of Dr. Sun Yat Sen in the early years of the Republic for failing to deliver a constitutional China. Admittedly many of the Sun's shortcomings while known but is not widely published. Sun's dictatorial traits in managing the KMT came to be scrutinized and his political decision away from a federated China in early 1920s was heavily criticized.
Most interestingly, the May Fourth Movement was severely criticized. The movement whilst promote science and democracy was premised upon a sense of lawlessness and mass popularity.
Eventually the movement was stolen by the Communism to legitimate violence revolution as opposed to a constitutional change of government.
Toward the end of the book, it became very clear that Xiao viewed the failure of China to develop democracy, constitutionalism, human right and the rule of laws to the lack of faith in God unlike the Judeo-Christian civilization in the West.
He favor a multi-polar power structure to keep a healthy check and balance for the peoples welfare. No wonder the single polar ruling structure of CCP China bans the book.
The writer, Xiao Jianzheng gave an elaborate and at time repetitive account as to why human right, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law failed to develop in China even though there were several opportunities in the the 4 millennia of history.
Xiao gave generous credit to the Zhou Dynasty and the Spring and Autumn Period for allowing an atmosphere of relative freedom to the peoples then. I was surprise to learn that there were then many practices that requires the ruler to defer to the "Guo Ren" (arguably the closest concept is citizen as opposed to the general subject who have no political rights).
He was highly critical of Qin Shihuang, Han Wudi, the Yuan Mongol, the Ming's Zhu Yuanzhang and the Machu Qing for imposing a dictatorial, illiberal and oppressive regime.
He complaint that the Legal School of Thought for the largest part of Chinese history was the various dynasty ruling philosophy with the Confucianism co-opted to legitimize the heavenly mandate. The imposition of brutal penalty by killing indiscriminately the offender's family members simply by association or massacring the defeated soldiers or civilians after conquest was a constant feature of the Chinese history.
The respect for life and the mercy for the weak are absent in larger part of the Chinese history and are not regarded as virtue but seen as a weakness. There maybe literature recorded the suffering and poverty of the peoples but none were critical to scrutinize the rulers. None offered a rival ideology or political doctrine to challenge the status quo. All dynasty were established by and large by the concept of replacing the heavenly mandate except that of the racist Yuan Mongol.
Surprising he gave raft review of the Song even though the Song was regarded generally as the weakest of all dynasty in the Chinese history. Xiao's justification vest in the Song's founding philosophy in governing the country with civility and humanity and that in turn allows mercantilism and high culture to flourish as witnessed by the quantity of finished goods and literature, poem and painting unearthed.
With the end of Song at the end of the genocidal Yuan Mongol, it also ended the Chinese civilization which once honored self integrity, respect life, relative equality for the woman, merciful of the aged, orphan, widows and the sick, promote mercantilism and literature.
What became the subsequent Chinese civilization are best exemplified by the values promoted by the classical novels of the Three Kingdoms and the Water Margin. The violence committed by the various heroes against many innocent was not condemned. The practice of camaraderie akin to gansterism is worshiped and not despised. The conduct out of legal bound is not criticized but regarded as loyalty to the clans and the family. These negative values together with the authoritarianism inherited from the earlier authoritarian dynasty became the mainstream vices into the present generation.
Xiao also analyzed the structure of power of the government. The earlier dynasty divided the power between that of the ruler and the prime minister. However the Ming destroyed the prime ministerial office with the power soley vested in the ruler which was then usurped by the eunuch or empress without check and balance. The Qing continued with the practice without the prime minister.
Coming close to the modern era, Xiao was also critical of the conduct of Dr. Sun Yat Sen in the early years of the Republic for failing to deliver a constitutional China. Admittedly many of the Sun's shortcomings while known but is not widely published. Sun's dictatorial traits in managing the KMT came to be scrutinized and his political decision away from a federated China in early 1920s was heavily criticized.
Most interestingly, the May Fourth Movement was severely criticized. The movement whilst promote science and democracy was premised upon a sense of lawlessness and mass popularity.
Eventually the movement was stolen by the Communism to legitimate violence revolution as opposed to a constitutional change of government.
Toward the end of the book, it became very clear that Xiao viewed the failure of China to develop democracy, constitutionalism, human right and the rule of laws to the lack of faith in God unlike the Judeo-Christian civilization in the West.
He favor a multi-polar power structure to keep a healthy check and balance for the peoples welfare. No wonder the single polar ruling structure of CCP China bans the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)