So says this article about China in today's New York Times.
Advocates of engagement, which would include every presidential administration since that of Richard Nixon, accept the argument of Nixon national security counselor, later Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Kissinger and his descendants have believed that by engaging the Chinese government and offering them the baubles of Western material bounty, the government there is bound to become more open and create expectations for economic and political betterment among the Chinese people.
While there is a rising middle class in China and the economy is growing at a robust 8% this year--down from a 10% annual growth rate over the past several years--there is little evidence to suggest that the repressive regime in Beijing is changing its ways.
The question, of course, is how long will it take for engagement to bring about the critical mass needed for democracy to spring forth there?
In the meantime, won't we in the West, seeing visions of dollar signs in our heads, risk complicity not only with the repression of the Beijing government, but also its militarism and desire for domination over other countries, including the United States?
Haven't we got this whole thing backwards? Capitalism sprang from democracy, not the other way around. What happens when we enable a bloodthirsty regime to get us and the rest of the world over an economic and military barrel?
What do we say to a repressive regime with designs for exporting its repression that adopts a modified capitalism in order to buy off a portion of the populace, denies the country real freedom, and buys the complicity of Western corporations with its repressiveness?
One thing we say is, "No!" And we do it a lot more often than we have under Presidents, Republican and Democrat, for the past thirty-four years.
2 comments:
Mark,
I heard some interesting comments on Marketplace recently:
1) The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest in China is now greater than it was at the time of the revolution in '49.
2) Western companies that want to do business in China know they will have to check their principles at the door because the only way to make things happen is through gifts, bribes, jobs for officials' kids, and so on. How does this help "transform" China? Aren't western companies then part of the problem instead of the solution?
3) The growth of China's economy and markets is on pace within a few decades to need what is currently the entire global energy output.
I've long been concerned that if it comes to a choice between profits and democracy, America will choose profits. Look at our sad history of propping up banana republics and the foreign policy of "He's an S.O.B., but he our S.O.B."
"The business of America is business."
Which political party (or leader) will act otherwise when it really comes down to it?
Jeff:
I think your last question is an important one. "Engagement" with China has become such an accepted element of US foreign and economic policy in both parties that it will take some courage for a political leader to stand up to the Chinese government.
Mark
Post a Comment