ASB Blogs
Kaalhauge Blog » Archive for the ‘Nationalism in China’ Category

One of the days when the Olympic torch was carried through San Francisco in April 2008, Grace Wang, a Chinese freshman at Duke University discovered a gathering of pro-Tibet demonstrators faced with a much larger pro-China counterdemonstration on the university campus ground. Ms. Wang who had friends on both sides tried to get the two groups to engage in a conversation with each other. However, the Chinese students she spoke with didn’t want to hear about any criticism of the Chinese government. The next day, Ms. Wang’s photo appeared on an Internet forum for Chinese students with the words “traitor to your country” written across her forehead. In addition, Ms. Wang’s Chinese name, identification number and contact information were posted, along with directions to her parents’ apartment in Qingdao, a Chinese port city. In the coming days, photographs of the young woman with demeaning text, including ugly rumours were circulated through China’s most popular Webs and for each expansion on the internet, thousands of new insults and derogatory remarks about the woman were added to the mountain of the already accumulated insults. One web-commentator even suggested that Ms. Wang should be burned in oil. Another Chinese patriot wrote to Ms. Wang, “If you return to China, your dead corpse will be chopped into 10,000 pieces.”

Oh, yes, Chinese nationalism these days are well and alive. Two things triggered the current outburst of Chinese nationalism, one was the disturbance of the Olympic torch by pro-Tibet demonstrators and the other were pictures broadcasted by CCTV and other Chinese stations featuring selected scene-shots of the Tibet uprising, which according to CCTV was nothing than “a riot” of the worst kind. Most Chinese protesters had no problem in condoning and justifying Chinese repression in Tibet; indeed, they could not conceptualize any repression at all. Tibet was according to them an indisputable part of China and it was a province that only had benefited from Chinese money, generosity and civilization. When Western media presented a different story, boundless anger was levelled toward everyone who dares to tell any other story than the true motherland story. For many weeks a campaign against CCN and other Western media boiled back and forth on the Chinese internet, where everyone showed his patriotism by introducing new and more compelling derogatory terms about the Western media; this anger was also organized abroad, hence in Atlanta in April hundreds of agitated Chinese demonstrators were waiving Placards in the air, while shouting “CNN liar.”

What was especially striking about the behavior of many of the Chinese demonstrators in foreign cities around the globe was the way by which it resembled mob-behavior during the Cultural Revolution; could it really be possible that no one had learned anything from this dark chapter of Chinese history? Another notable feature was that Beijing unscrupulously encouraged its devotees to demonstrate all-over the free world, while pro-boycott demonstrations anywhere in China would have been beaten-up and arrested. In this way, Beijing used the freedom of the Western world to its own advances but prohibited its adversaries to enjoy the same right in China. Needless to say, this is the kind of opportunism; there is build into the very nature of the Chinese autocratic system. In South Korea, the behavior of pro-Olympic torch demonstrators was particularly rude and violent, as they engaged in throwing rocks, bottled water, steel pipes and sticks against pro-Tibet demonstrators, who they heavily outnumbered.

Chinese demonstrators attack Tibetan protestors in Seoul, South Korea, April 27, 2008.

Certainly, recent events surrounding the Olympic torch and the rebellion in Tibet have potentials of becoming a turning point in history. I tend to agree with Zhengxu Wang, a scholar at the University of Nottingham, when he says that “in essence, the Beijing Olympics, along with the global controversy it has generated, mark not the beginning, but the end of an era.” Yes, there is reasons why it is plausible that we stand in the beginning of a new era in the relationship between China and the world. The rebellion in Tibet and the corresponding debate about the torch has function as a eye-opener and turned global awareness toward the political and moral consequences of China’s rise as a global power. Free trade and cheap Chinese products are nice things but people are begining to wonder whether the political costs of the benefits are not too high? What has emerged in blogs, news-media and worldwide opinion-polls, is an increased scepticism and aversion about the nature of China’s political regime. More and more observers are concerned with the political cost of allowing a harsh authoritarian dictatorship like China to grow into such an important international economic actor. Is the democratic world digging its own grave by facilitating China with FDI, markets-options and international goodwill?

This change in public awareness and concern is by no means restricted to “the Western world,” world-wide opinion polls reveal that the sentiments span the whole globe. As a matter of fact, one of the most outspoken intellectuals against Chinese politics is Ian Boyne from Jamaica and Jamaica is not normally associated with the West in any narrow sense of the term. Mr. Boyne is a prolific writer, who has written in countless international journals spanning the political spectrum from New Left Review to the Cato Journal. Mr. Boyne is particularly concerned with what he consider as Beijing repressive behavior in Sudan and Zimbabwe but he has also offered a more general analysis of the Chinese regime’s nature and politics. In the Jamaica Gleaner, in April 20, 2008, Ian Boyne analyzes the recent events surrounding Tibet and the Olympic torch. “China, he writes, is an increasingly influential Great Power whose scorn of the western human rights tradition is a deep concern to foreign policy analysts. The recent protests in Tibet and the subsequent repression by the Chinese authorities, which sparked the Olympic torch disruptions, could advance the torch of freedom in China. Human rights activists must continue the pressure on China, with the hope that that country can tame its totalitarian impulse. … While the United States has often failed to be true to its democratic rhetoric and heritage, that country has a strong philosophical and cultural commitment to human rights and civil liberties. China is philosophically committed to a set of ideas which are obnoxious to the Western liberal tradition.

By this token, the dramatic events surrounding Tibet and the Olympic Games have given birth to a new global awareness. As a signpost it reflects a new phase of China’s rise, which is moving beyond a sheer industrial exercise and into a process, where its moral and geopolitical implications become more obvious by the day. It has increasingly become clear that China’s growth is much more than an “neutral” exercise in economic development, it has crucial negative implications for the survival of democratic and human rights in the world. As Ian Boyne correct pointed out, China’s authoritarian dictatorship is inherently obnoxious vis-a-vis the fundamental principles of human rights. Indeed, China’s power to harass and obstruct democratic principles can be seen very clearly in the way the German government has avoided to met with Dalai Lama during his recent visit in Germany; it is a concrete example of how China’s economical strenght can translate into political might. Be sure that the harassement of the German government is only a prelude for things to come.

Of course, it is not the first time in modern history, where the democratic world has been faced with an aggressively expanding autocratic regime, we are naturally all aware of the historical processes by which the democratic countries of this world combatted Nazi Germany, Japan Imperialism and the Soviet Union. However, as Robert Kagan has argued in a new book called The Return of History and the End of Dream, the battle with autocratic regimes is not over and democracies in this world need to pull themselves together and actively defend their basic principles. In this way, the idea that China simply would developed into a democracy society through sheer economic development alone is no longer a plausible proposition. Thus, the prolonged hope that China through the mechanisms of a free marked would pass into the orbit of democracy is nothing but a flimsy illusion. Indeed, the nationalistic outboost and various opinon polls indicate that the Chinese population has move significantly in an authoritarian direction. In this regard it is indicative that a new TV series in 23 episodes about the young Chairman Mao, one of the biggest mass murders in World History, has become a big hit in China, especially among university students. The ghoost of totalitarian ideologies is not far away from the Chinese unconsciouss; the government is promoting a rosy, soap-opera-like fairytale about the Chinese past and too many young Chinese is too ready to swallow it. That Mao was a criminal is too hard a reality to cope with: it is easier to live in the lies of a patriotic phantasm. George Santayana, once said, “wisdom comes with disillusion,” but the young Chinese radicals is fixed like junkies on cheap, pseudo-heroic fairtales about their own past. One need to understand that the outbust of Chinese nationalism as it exploded around the Tibet event came from the roots of the young nationalists on the Cyberspace themselves. That is, its was a genuine feeling not simply a government construct. In its own peculiar form, it does indicate that some kind of civic society do exist but a civic society that has internalized the values of their own repressors. Indeed, when one study China today it becomes increasingly clear that the country’s civic-societal paralysis is not so much the effect of regime repression as it is the victim of its own self-repression. The government is feeding this self-repression through CCTV and other tools yet fundamentally, it is a flaw from within; the flaws of nationalist mythologies that paralyze the brain. All true greatness start with a humble but persistent self-criticism but when did you last met a young Chinese nationalist who was self-critical on China’s behalf? The West is different, our hero is Nietzsche but what is Nietzsche saying; he is basically ridiculing the West, telling us that Christianity is evil, that democracy is silly, patriotism is rubbish and so on. In sum, he is telling us all kind of things we do not want to hear. But that is why he is so attractive in the West because he inspires our critical thinking. Where is Nietzsche in China these days? Literally nowhere; indeed if Nietzsche was in China he would be ridiculed, called a traitor, silented and arrested. That’s why China is in a kind of intellectual limbo today, everything deeper is sapped out of the debate either because of a cloroformistic groupthink, or by CCTV and by the police. The problems is not that China doesn’t have great intellectuals; the problem is that they do not stand at chance in China these days. What is particularily noticable about young Chinese nationalists is their obsession about being proud about China, speak about the country’s glory, etc. etc. As if real greatness had anything to do with screaming and shouting about it. Think about it: a person who goes around saying “look how great I am; I am very, very great” is most likely not the most greatest person around. Another trend among young Chinese nationalists is the idea that the world is “out to get them.” For them Tibet is just a plot in a Western conspiracy which only purpose is to weaken and humilitate China; of course, it has nothing to do with human rights; no, no, it is a part of an evil plan by CNN, CIA, the French, the Japanese and who-ever is on the hitlist of evils. And so on. When one look into the current Chinese debates on the internet and elsewhere, one get a sense of a nation still living mentality in the 15th Century or at best fighting the battle of the 19th Century. The worst thing is that they are repeating the same mistakes; then and now, it is the political system, which is the problem; but young Chinese nationalists have taboorized this idea; they can’t even raise the question. Certainly, there exist few brave exceptions in China, some real substantial people but they are depressingly few. One can only wonder what has happen to the spirit of 1989? If the current political regime continues in China, and there is no sign to the contrary, then China will emerged as an authoritarian threat to the democratic way of life and especially to human rights in places such as Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe and Tibet.

New York Times Video about Chinese Cyber-nationalism.

It is not because democracy has bad odds in the approaching struggle. Some of the major powers who determines the socio-political order of this planet are all democracies; they include the US, the EU, India, Japan, Brazil, South Korea and South Africa. Although China is a giant, the major democratics in this world is by combined numbers far bigger; so even if China is big one should not become paralyzed by its numbers. Although the road to democracy is complex and troublesome, the general tendency in modern time has been a stepwise increase of democratic countries allover the world. Yet, with a major autocratic power as China emerging this process can’t simply be taken for granted. Unless democratic countries stand up for their principles and values, they might be in for an unpleasant surprise. Nonetheless, with the exception of China most autocratic states in the world are comparatively weak, underdeveloped or highly troubled places, so even if there should emerge an authoritarian axis under the hegemony of China, it would not be an axis that was terribly strong. Nonetheless, the new authoritarian “brotherhood” is working well already, since China, is selling its advanced censorship systems of the Internet to other repressive regimes of this world. According to Joshua Kurlantzick, “already, China, Russia and Central Asian authoritarian states have issued joint communiqués denouncing the export of democracy, and have begun to protect each other from international forums like the United Nations.” Many has speculated whether there could emerged as Russia-Chinese autocratic alliance? The recent joint statement from Russia and Chína condeming the US missile shield could be seen as an important step in such a direction. However, a strong anti-democratic Russian-Chinese alliance is not very plausible for several reasons. First, Russia is importantly tied to its obligation and trade with Europe and it will have little and no interest in seriously alienating this relationship; moreover and perhaps even more important, Russia and China stand head-to-head in the strategic game about Central Asia, where the interests of two powers are fundamentally opposite.

What Tibet has signified and what the Olympic Games in August most likely will reveal is that the naivity and goodwill regarding China have gone and that a new era of skepticism will emerged. In other words, the rule of the game will change and China’s policy in Tibet, Africa, Cental Asia and elsewhere will become submitted to intensified global attention and counter-measures. At the same time a wave of protectionalism can’t be rule out, especially in the US and such a trend will weaken China’s drive. Another scenario might be that international investment will begin to flow in other directions than China. The most important step will most likely become a new intensified skepticism and criticism of China on the grass-root level of global politics. Whatever the case might be, the relationship between the world and China after Tibet and the Olympics is ripe for profound changes. World opinon brought at least Apartheid to an end, and one can just wonder whether it has other great deads to perform.