No Exceptions for Democracy in China

Project for the New American Century ^ | November 15, 2003 | Ellen Bork

[RWR8189]

President Bush's speech at last week's 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy made democracy a top foreign policy priority. The president reminded us of the hope our freedom inspires in others and the obligations it imposes on us: "In prison camps, in banned union meetings, in clandestine churches, men and women knew of at least one place -- a bright and hopeful land -- where freedom was valued and secured. And they prayed that America would not forget them."

But with regard to China, the largest dictatorship on Earth and a regime that jails democracy and labor activists, religious believers, journalists and health researchers, the president struck a different note. Only "eventually," he said, will the Chinese people "want their liberty pure and whole." Only "eventually" will they "insist on controlling their lives and their own country." Ironically, the president then rejected the "cultural condescension" that has "questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are 'ready' for democracy."

And so the "China exception" to the Bush administration's democracy agenda was born. In case anyone thinks this unintentional, the day before, at a conference at Texas A&M University, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell left no doubt that the administration subordinates democracy in China to other interests. Instead, Powell advanced "real friendship" as the basis for U.S.-China relations and elevated it to the level of statecraft.

China, according to Powell, acts "in cooperation with us, not in competition with us." Gone is the "strategic competitor" language of the George W. Bush presidential campaign. China's "backsliding" on human rights is a "disappointment," Powell said, but it will be dealt with "candidly, and openly, and sometimes in a critical way." After all, "that is how real friends deal with each other. That is how real partners get along."

Real friends, it seems, gloss over "China's sobering experience with SARS," which "stands as a lesson to all countries on the challenge of infectious diseases." Of course, it was China's deceit about severe acute respiratory syndrome that allowed it to spread inside China and to other countries. Moreover, HIV-AIDS, said the secretary, is a global threat "and yes, it is a danger to China as well." In fact, China's is the "worst medically caused HIV-AIDS epidemic in the world," says one expert who projects a death toll in the millions. Yet the secretary had not a word for the researchers who have gone to jail for investigating the disease's spread.

While there may be "ups and downs" in the friendship, there is "an even greater need to shape a relationship defined by our mutual interests, not by those areas of disagreement," Powell said. What's important is what Washington and Beijing do together, no matter what else is going on. In this view, the fact that the Tiananmen Square massacre "stalled" creation of a "new foundation of trust" between the United States and China rivals the crushing of a nascent democracy movement in importance.

In Powell's view, it was fortuitous that a Chinese fighter pilot "collided" with an American EP-3 reconnaissance plane. "Our teams worked with the Chinese teams over an intensive two-week period to resolve the matter," which, however "tragic" and "disappointing to us both," was actually an opportunity to create better relations.

One improvement, according to Powell, has been the frequency of contacts with Chinese officials. Powell joked that the Chinese foreign minister "tracked me down" at 6 in the morning after Powell shook hands in Panama with the president of Taiwan. Powell gave reassurances that there is "no other agenda but our single policy, our 'one China' [policy], which is clear-cut [and] principled." Of course, it is neither. American policy denies democratic Taiwan recognition, keeping it isolated and vulnerable while China builds up capabilities to achieve unification through force or coercion. Even this, according to the secretary of state, is important not because Taiwan's democracy is threatened but because it will "tell us a great deal about the kind of role China seeks with its neighbors and with us."

Perhaps the Bush administration believes that other interests are served by subordinating democracy to concerns such as cooperation on Iraq, terrorism and North Korea. But that cooperation is usually exaggerated, and in fact China serves its own interests in every case. A real friend would give sanctuary to North Korean refugees and use economic leverage to pressure Pyongyang, the most repressive regime in existence. Let's see how cooperative China is in creating a unified and democratic Korean Peninsula.

Where China's interests diverge from those of the United States, so will its actions. "Real friendship" cannot mask the incompatibility of a democratic government and a dictatorship. Isn't that what the president's speech to the National Endowment for Democracy was all about?

The writer is deputy director of the Project for the New American Century.

[HighRoadToChina]

Sad. Americans will pay the price for this seemingly stupidity.

[ProudGOP]

Americans will pay the price for this seemingly stupidity.

Perhaps but I don't think so. The Chinese government has recently allowed the people to have relative economic freedom while still being a ward of the state.

I believe the next step for the new middle class of China is to look to their political freedom. Once they don't have to worry about whether they will eat today, they will start to long for true freedom. IMHO, this is going to cause huge internal problems for China over the next decade as their middle class decides they not only want to earn a living, they now want a say in their government.

It is very difficult to decouple economic freedom and political freedom because with money comes power. The new middle and upper classes of China are not going to want to cede that power to the state.

[goldstategop]

I agree. Right now the Party's legitimacy rests on being able to deliver the goods in terms of an improved standard of living and social stability. If it can't do that, it will fall. And no dictatorship has lasted forever and Communism in China is in late middle age. It took well over 70 years for the Soviet regime to finally disappear.

[taiwansemi]

Recorded history is 5,000 years old. Modern democracy is but a little over 200 years old. Democratic ancient Athens lasted only 80 years. So it's too early to say that authoritarian China can't last a long time. Authoritarianism is the historical norm more than democracy. It's democracy which is more of a new "experiment" in the historical scheme of things than authoritarianism.

In addition, in contrast to about 7 years ago when some Americans were more insistent about China's becoming a democracy overnight, America's elite these days realizes more and more that an authoritarian China is more in their own interest. If China became a democracy tomorrow, it would not become a mirror image of America overnight but much more likely another dysfunctional, chaotic Third World republic along the lines of Indonesia, Russia, India, Brazil, Argentina, S. Africa, Turkey, and other newly democraticized Third World countries. These young democracies all have several things in common: a gridlock-plagued legislature that delays much-needed economic reforms, a need for IMF bailouts, and capital flight. On the other hand, China's authoritarian government passes economic reforms much more expeditiously, so China attracts the vast bulk of foreign investment.

Western Europe and America didn't adopt democracy until about 200 years ago, which is the time in their histories that they developed politically powerful middle-classes or "bourgeoisie." The merchant-class bourgeoisie, in fact, led the French and American Revolutions, ushering in modern democracy. Americans were particularly disturbed by the issue of King George's imposition of irrational taxes on their bourgeois international trading activities -- "No taxes without representation!" Half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were in the business of international trade. China hasn't gotten to that point yet, but China's only had 20 years of capitalism, so one needs to be patient.

It's important also to note that prior to middle-classes developing in the West about 200 years ago, it was the work of "enlightened despots" between 1700 and 1800 who set the stage for middle-classes to grow by codifying the laws, establishing uniform private property rights, and other important economic reforms that set the stage for middle-classes to come into being (the Industrial Revolution also helped). China's leaders today can be thought of as pro-capitalist "enlightened despots" like the European enlightened despots of the 18th century.

Similarly, the one-party governments of the Asian tiger governments like Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. over the past 50 years can also be thought of as pro-capitalist "enlightened despots" who made important economic reforms that set the stage for middle classes in those countries to develop. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew even wrote a book about how under one-party rule, the Asian tigers were able to leap from Third World to First World status in just one generation.

The common feature of Europe's enlightened despots, one-party Asian tiger governments, and China's leadership today is that they can all expeditiously pass much-needed economic reforms without the hassle of slow-moving, gridlock-plagued democratic legislative processes constanty thwarting economic reform efforts. Such delays have been the story of democratic India which, after 50 years of democracy, STILL hasn't become a mirror image of America yet. China has a much better shot of developing its country rapidly if its follows its current course rather than adopt democracy prematurely and become the latest Third World democratic economic basketcase requiring IMF bailouts.

[Cronos]

much more likely another dysfunctional, chaotic Third World republic along the lines of Indonesia, Russia, India, Brazil, Argentina, S. Africa, Turkey, and other newly democraticized Third World countries.

Oh sure and in the 1800s America should have had a King, invited George the IIIrds nephew to rule or perhaps Napoleon's nephew could have been Maximillian of America instead of Mexico.

[Cronos]

China's AIDs epidemic is ignored by the Communist govt. Whatever statistics that come out of that govt are mostly outright lies. The number stated by them having AIDs is definitely a major understatement. The numbers must be at least 10 times larger -- knowing the way commie govt under-report.

[Cronos]

There you go again saying Communism good, democracy BAD: democratic India which, after 50 years of democracy, STILL hasn't become a mirror image of America yet

The US 50 years after independence in the 1820s - 1830s was hardly a mirror image of us now. plus India played the stupid game of socialism, but know that it's waking up, it's like Japan or S. Korea or Singapore -- democracies that encourage individuals to prosper. That is not messy, that is long-term development not hyped up, illusionary growth in which all the brainwork is done by foreign nationals and the MNCs use the chicoms as automatons.

[taiwansemi]

Just be aware that all those "democracies" you mentioned such as Japan, Korea, etc. are some of China's biggest investors.

[taiwansemi]

Read my post #5 more carefully about the role of 18th century European "enlightened despots" in setting the stage for democracy later.

[Cronos]

China's commie rulers are not enlightened despots, more like folks intent on building their own families up, like Mafia

[Lazamataz]

But with regard to China, the largest dictatorship on Earth and a regime that jails democracy and labor activists, religious believers, journalists and health researchers, the president struck a different note. Only "eventually," he said, will the Chinese people "want their liberty pure and whole." Only "eventually" will they "insist on controlling their lives and their own country." Ironically, the president then rejected the "cultural condescension" that has "questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are 'ready' for democracy."

Bush can do no wrong.

[Texas_Dawg]

Bush can do no wrong.

He's a Christian unlike you. Which explains the huge difference in why he cares about Chinese Christians whereas you support them being forced out of higher paying, safer, American jobs and back into Chinese government-run factories.

[Lazamataz]

He's a Christian unlike you. Which explains the huge difference in why he cares about Chinese Christians

That is an exact opposite statement of my position. I've consistantly pointed out to you that our present policy supports a government who tortures Christians in China. I may be Jewish but I recognize the debt Jews owe Christians in WWII and other times.

I've often said I consider Christiams my spiritual cousins.

This reminds me a lot of the time you accused me of being racist because I mentioned the word "Chinese" in two messages. Perhaps you need another time out for making yet another baseless accusation?

[Texas_Dawg]

Perhaps you need another time out for making yet another baseless accusation?

Yawn...

Haha. What a little baby you are.

My point is absolutely correct. You want jobs removed from China by having the US government bar its citizens from trading freely. You care not a flip about the persecuted Chinese Christians other than your bogus appeals to them in order to demagogue the US government into propping up your job. Very, very typical considering your background.

[Lazamataz]

My point is absolutely correct. You want jobs removed from China by having the US government bar its citizens from trading freely. You care not a flip about the persecuted Chinese Christians other than your bogus appeals to them in order to demagogue the US government into propping up your job. Very, very typical considering your background.

Whereas, you support and prop up the regime that tortures Chinese Christians. You seek to ensure that they will remain persecuted by the Chinese government. It is as if you personally are taking a whip to the back of Chinese Christians.

When are you going to stop torturing Chinese Christians, Texas_Fraud?

[Texas_Dawg]

Whereas, you support and prop up the regime that tortures Chinese Christians. You seek to ensure that they will remain persecuted by the Chinese government. It is as if you personally are taking a whip to the back of Chinese Christians.

Like I say, GWB is working to change that Chinese government and make it more free. Because he's a Christian. You are not. You care only about yourself and government protection for your job. It shows.

[Lazamataz]

Like I say, GWB is working to change that Chinese government and make it more free.

Make it more free by letting the status quo ride? Yeah, that's working to make it more free.

Do you have any idea how freakin' ignorant you sound? People who make changes CHANGE THINGS. You do not change something by keeping things the same.

Because he's a Christian. You are not. You care only about yourself and government protection for your job. It shows.

You seek to deport jobs from America. You want Americans to be poor. You also seek to keep the Chinese government in power, and to continue to torture Chinese Christians. Stop torturing Chinese Christians, Texas_Fraud.

[Texas_Dawg]

You do not change something by keeping things the same.

Yeah. China in the 1950s is really similar to China today. You're really bright.

[Texas_Dawg]

You seek to deport jobs from America. You want Americans to be poor.

Stock market booming, unemployment falling, free trade increasing. You just don't understand economics.