Posted on 03/09/2006 6:05:56 AM PST by Dark Skies
Frontpage Interview's guest today is Gordon G. Chang, the author of The Coming Collapse of China (Amazon link).
FP: Gordon G. Chang, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Chang: Thank you very much.
FP: You believe that the Chinese Communist Party will fall from power by the end of this decade. We are talking about just a few years. What do you see here and why? And how is this compatible with the fact that China is getting more prosperous? What will replace the Party?
Chang: As China gets more prosperous, it is becoming less stable. Senior Beijing officials now face the dilemma of all reforming authoritarians: economic success endangers their continued control. As Harvard's Samuel Huntington has noted, sustained modernization is the enemy of one-party systems. Revolutions occur under many conditions, but especially when political institutions do not keep up with the social forces unleashed by economic change. And as history shows us, nothing irritates a rising social class like inflexible political institutions. The most interesting trend about protests in recent years is not that they are becoming more frequent, getting much larger, or growing more violent. The most interesting trend is that we are now seeing middle-class Chinese, the beneficiaries of the last quarter century of progress, taking to the streets.
Beijing’s policies seem designed to widen the gap between the people and their government, thereby ensuring greater instability for the foreseeable future. Today there’s unimaginable societal change at unheard of speed thanks in large part to government-sponsored economic growth and social engineering. Yet at the same time the Communist Party stands in the way of meaningful political change.
Because senior officials don’t allow political change of substance, the authorities must resort to force to stop the spread of unrest. But the use of the coercive power of the state is only a short-term solution—force just makes protests even harder to control next time. The leadership will not, or cannot, come to terms with the causes of unrest.
Ultimately, the one-party system will be replaced by democratic institutions. The transition won't be easy, however. China will probably experience years of uncertainty, instability, and turbulence.
Glazov: The government of China has instituted a policy that has resulted in the murder of one million baby girls every year for the last ten or more years. Do you think the market is going to end that?
Chang: What will end the one-child policy is the Chinese people. This draconian edict is unpopular across China, from tiny inland hamlets to the mighty coastal cities. Ordinary citizens will not put up with it for much longer. In fact, many of them are now ignoring this policy.
FP: Is America's policy of engaging China succeeding?
Chang: Beijing's foreign policies are definitely changing for the better as the result of America's generous and enlightened efforts to bring China into the international system. Beijing is no longer the outlander or the revolutionary that it was during the Maoist years. China will one day be a constructive participant in world affairs.
But it is not one today. Our policy is the grandest wager in history. We are hoping to make China a more responsible power. So far, all we have done is make it a more powerful one. We may not be creating the next Soviet Union, but we are nonetheless enabling a country that now considers us a foe. Today, China is the primary obstacle to disarming North Korea, is one of the main supporters of Iran's nuclear weapons program, is a friend of most every reprehensible regime on the planet, is the world's master proliferator of nuke technology, and is the only country that actively plans to kill Americans.
Our government seeks to engage China, which means that Washington is not willing to talk honestly about that country's behavior. Today, we overlook, ignore, and sugarcoat. The risk for us is that the Chinese will bring down the current American-led international system long before China would otherwise become a responsible power. We are playing an enormously dangerous game, and we seldom talk about the risks.
Unfortunately, positive change will not come as fast as it should, in part because we have created a set of perverse incentives. The Chinese engage in bad behavior. We reward them. So they continue their irresponsible conduct. We reward them still more. In these circumstances, why would they ever change?
So is our policy toward China succeeding? Not yet. Will it succeed? Yes, in the long term. But there may be no long term.
FP: You think that North Korea could start a chain of events that might bring down the current American-led international system. Kindly explain.
Chang: North Korea is the only nation to have withdrawn from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the global pact that is at the heart of the global arms control regime. By its defiance, Pyongyang is shredding those rules and inspiring other bomb builders. Iran's atomic ayatollahs are defying the international community at this time because they saw that North Korea's Kim Jong Il did the same a few years ago and has gotten away with it.
What will our world look like when dozens of hostile and unstable regimes can trigger Armageddon? Perhaps things could turn out okay, but it is more likely that we will transition to a world that is unfamiliar to us, perhaps the most dangerous world imaginable. An international system that cannot defend its most vital interests against one of its weakest members cannot last. So this could be where the world writes its history for the next hundred years.
FP: What is the most urgent and important bilateral issue between Washington and Beijing?
Chang: The most important and urgent issue is China's proliferation of nuclear technologies and its diplomatic support for regimes like North Korea and Iran that covet the most destructive weapon in history. No other issue comes close. Why? Because nukes are the only weapons that pose an existential threat to the United States.
When Hu Jintao visits Washington in April we need to make it clear to him that nuclear proliferation is the litmus test of our relations. We have been patiently engaging the Chinese for decades, and now is the time for them to act constructively. After all, what is the point of trying to integrate them into an international system that they are trying to destablize through proliferation of nuclear technologies?
FP: What effect will the 2008 Olympics have on China?
Chang: The awarding of the Olympic games both strengthens and weakens the regime. Of course, many Chinese think better of the Communist Party for winning the right to host this event. There is an added inflow of foreign investment and sponsorship money. Tourism will increase for sure. On the other hand, the regime will be weakened as the process of modernization accelerates.
One thing the games will not do is change the leadership. Beijing has already won its prize, and senior officials see little or no need to yield to world opinion. The regime won’t change; the people will.
One more point about the Olympics. Beijing will employ every resource at its command to ensure stability in the run up to the games. It is unlikely, however, that the central authorities will be able to maintain a high level of vigilance indefinitely. Squeezing too tight now, the Communist Party will eventually have to relax its grip. The latter part of this decade promises to be a time of even greater instability for China.
FP: Gordon G. Chang, thank you for joining us today.
Chang: I appreciate your interviewing me.
Imagine if another Tienemen Square were to take place DURING the 2008 olympics?
What would the government do?
Seems like a prime opportunity for the people of China to make a big deal about the fact they are slaves. Slave Riot!
Under the current regime, given the enormous rise of the economy, the scale of corruption has to be staggering.
My dad, who spent many years in China and Asia, always predicted China would not remain Communist for long. The Chinese have been bankers, traders and brokers for generations, unlike the Russians who are suspicious of "profit."
If Chang is indulging in wishfulness, he certainly seems to be tempering it.
I think this is worth highlighting:
. . . China will one day be a constructive participant in world affairs.
But it is not one today. Our policy is the grandest wager in history. We are hoping to make China a more responsible power. So far, all we have done is make it a more powerful one. We may not be creating the next Soviet Union, but we are nonetheless enabling a country that now considers us a foe. Today, China is the primary obstacle to disarming North Korea, is one of the main supporters of Iran's nuclear weapons program, is a friend of most every reprehensible regime on the planet, is the world's master proliferator of nuke technology, and is the only country that actively plans to kill Americans.
Our government seeks to engage China, which means that Washington is not willing to talk honestly about that country's behavior. Today, we overlook, ignore, and sugarcoat. . . . We are playing an enormously dangerous game, and we seldom talk about the risks.
One of President Bush's best ideas (IMO) is that we need to stop doing that. We support Democracy wherever it can be found. We disavow dictators wherever they may be. This is good -- morally good, of course, but also I think it is politically good.
The one exception (sigh) seems to be China. They are so big. They manufacture so much, so cheaply. We just don't want to declare them to be unacceptable.
I fear that we are making a mistake. We can look back at the Cold War and feel embarassment ("I can't believe we supported that guy!") but we're still doing it today.
Thank you, "free traders."
The Chinese engage in bad behavior. We reward them. So they continue their irresponsible conduct. We reward them still more.
That's why Lenin called Western businessmen "useful idiots."
Well. let's see. In the special economic zones there are some 300 million many of whom are the "haves." That leaves about 800 million outside of the zones almost all of whom are the "have nots." Who will win? Many among the "haves" are Party members, I bet they will try to use the 800 million against the dangerous idea of democracy.
It almost seems to be appeasement. I find it to be a horrible game.
They will need a large threat from the outside to galvanize
the people to back who ever controls their military...
A big 'righteous' seeming war is always good for keeping thugs in power and garnering them even more...
imo
Shhh... No blaspheming against the cult of the awmighty dollar round here.
"My dad, who spent many years in China and Asia, always predicted China would not remain Communist for long. The Chinese have been bankers, traders and brokers for generations, unlike the Russians who are suspicious of "profit.""
Excellent point. I believe that!
Completely agree. Plus it appears that it is causing them to ignore a rising national security threat...and refuse to acknowledge squarely some very disturbing strategic positioning by China in our own hemisphere....not to mention these:
In many ways Gordon Chang is actually admitting via some caveats within the heart of the interview... that some of his conclusions and the title is more wish than probability.
Particularly when he more or less tracks with the late Dr. Constantine Menges, and concurs that we are actually hindering the democratic revolution against the Chinese Communist Party:
"Today, we overlook, ignore, and sugarcoat. The risk for us is that the Chinese will bring down the current American-led international system long before China would otherwise become a responsible power. We are playing an enormously dangerous game, and we seldom talk about the risks.
Unfortunately, positive change will not come as fast as it should, in part because we have created a set of perverse incentives. The Chinese engage in bad behavior. We reward them. So they continue their irresponsible conduct. We reward them still more. In these circumstances, why would they ever change?
So is our policy toward China succeeding? Not yet. Will it succeed? Yes, in the long term. But there may be no long term." [Emphasis added]
He can be excused for being guardedly optimistic, but he himself is recognizing he could be horribly wrong...
Hence, for national defense planning we can't be banking on his wishful thinking.
The very same wishful thinking that has been holding sway since George H.W. Bush was President Reagan's point man for China.
I think he understates also the import of the degree of 'radicalism' still promulgated by China...if not so much overtly, then covertly via their secretive diplomacy with any and all comers who have issues with the U.S.: Russians, Venezuelans, Iranians, Cubans, Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, Panama and of course North Korea.
They are clearly pushing towards some sort of global, strategic coordinated action against the U.S....probably encompassing, military, and economic.
And the most dangerous times are always when tyrants fear they are losing control. They will use their full power to try and keep it.
Furthermore, even if the CCP were eventually ousted, (which remains to be seen) we still have much reason to be alarmed about the racist nationalism they have been orchestrating to cement their hold on national popularity. this could easily morph into an equally, if not more dangerous version of Sino-Nazism.
What would the government do?
The communists are well aware of this possibility, or the more likely smaller but numerous demonstrations.
In preparation for the Olympics they are now rounding up and jailing/killing those who might try to put up a demonstration of any sort during the Olympics when the world is focused on China.
They have internet police active as well to find any dissenters. Since Tiananmen they have been pro-active in stopping any such activity before it would even begin. This is why contrary to what many say, what we would refer to as civil liberties have actually decreased over the past 15 years.
I give the Chinese communist's fascist state 19 more years. When you see KMT setting up offices on mainland, then the end is near for the fascists.
As Gordon Chang intimates, that is a longer time than we have.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.