[political]

Chinese President Xi Jinping is treading on dangerous ground. In his speech before the World Economic Forum’s annual conclave of political and economic luminaries in Davos, Xi set out to establish himself as the standard-bearer for globalization and China as a beneficiary from globalization in the past and a leader in the future. Many observers have been quick to support China’s claim to a leadership position, not only because China wants the job but also because the United States appears not to. Rhetoric from the incoming U.S. leadership, with its threat of high tariffs and trade wars, has a distinct antiglobalization flavor. Yet whatever path Washington elects moving forward, anointing China as the world’s “champion of globalization” would be a mistake.

Xi Jinping.jpg (44.49 KiB) Viewed 4033 times

Certainly China has already assumed many of the trappings of global leadership. It is the world’s largest trading power, it boasts the largest standing army, and it behaves like a global leader, proposing new international institutions and arrangements such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the huge connectivity project One Belt, One Road. China’s military has likewise gone global, establishing its first logistics base in Djibouti; and more such bases will likely follow. There is also talkin China’s foreign policy community of the need for the country to build formal alliances, further cementing its position not simply as an emerging or regional leader but as a global power. And, of course, China has embraced opportunities to showcase its leadership potential by hosting prestigious international gatherings such as the G-20 and the Olympics.

Yet real leadership in an era of globalization requires much more. First, there must be both willingness and ability to bring others to the table to meet the world’s most pressing concerns. Although China has partnered with the United States to help address challenges such as climate change, the Ebola virus, and North Korea’s nuclear program, the United States and other nations have had to prod, push, and in some instances even shame China into doing the right thing. China’s initial contribution of health workers to help address the Ebola virus crisis, for example, was less than that of Cuba, and in the end, its financial contribution amounted to only three percent that of the United States. With regard to North Korea, China has gradually deepened its commitment to international sanctions, yet its record of enforcing these sanctions on its own companies remains dismal. Even in terms of climate change, where China’s work with the United States has indeed brought new energy to international negotiations, the story isn’t simple. Although China’s demonstrated commitment to clean energy investment is modelworthy, it nonetheless plans to export its most polluting industries, including coal-fired power plants, throughout the world, through its One Belt, One Road initiative. Global leadership has to go beyond prioritizing only one’s own interests.

Then there are the global issues with which China has yet to engage at all. China’s voice has been largely absent in the face of one of the most devastating crises now confronting the world: the refugees fleeing war-torn areas throughout the Middle East and beyond. Even the United States, which is not adjacent to the conflict, has taken in 10,000 refugees as of September 2016. In Xi’s Davos speech, he referenced “the refugee waves from the Middle East and North Africa” and acknowledged that the situation is “heartbreaking.” However, he failed to raise the prospect of China’s leadership on the issue, much less promise any contribution to addressing it. Perhaps China will open its pocketbook, but there is no evidence that it is prepared to open its doors.

Second, as has become increasingly evident over the past several years, China under Xi is far from an exemplar of globalization. Despite Xi’s call to arms at the November 2016 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Peru, where he stated, “China will not shut the door to the outside world but [will] open [the door] more,” the reality has been the opposite. The government has passed numerous laws and regulations to limit the impact of textbooks, nongovernmental organizations, and media and entertainment from abroad on Chinese society. And when China confronts popular unrest—labor, environmental, or other—Chinese media frequently ascribe it to “hostile foreign forces.” Even foreign trade and investment—the touchstones of globalization—have their limits. “Any attempt to cut off the flow of capital, technologies, products, industries, and people between economies,” Xi noted at Davos, “is simply not possible.” But China, in fact, expends enormous effort doing just that. It sets sharp limits on capital outflows from China and restricts opportunities for foreign technologies to dominate the Chinese market or, alternatively, forces technology transfer from foreign firms to Chinese companies. China also uses trade and investment to punish smaller countries such as the Philippines and Norway for perceived political infractions.

Beijing sets sharp limits on capital outflows from China and restricts opportunities for foreign technologies to dominate the Chinese market.

Notably, nowhere in Xi’s Davos speech did he mention the free flow of information—also an essential element of globalization. Xi might seek to promote the Chinese narrative abroad, but he has little interest in allowing alternative ideas and ideals to influence the Chinese domestic audience. The Chinese Internet, in the words of the Chinese blogger Michael Anti, is in danger of becoming a “Chinanet,” with less and less access for Chinese citizens to foreign content. China has the right to determine its own laws and regulations with regard to information access—real or virtual—but there is no way to square such laws with those that promote globalization.

Finally, when considering China as a global leader, it is worth a quick look at the China model. Yes, it is an extraordinary achievement to have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But what is the China model today? With the range of environmental, public health, and other social challenges China now confronts as a result of its development model, is it a model worth emulating? Can the world afford a global leader that does not speak out on human rights abuses elsewhere and has a long and storied record of failing to acknowledge and address its own?

The temptation to yield to China’s aspirations for global leadership in an era when globalization appears under threat is great. Given the current uncertainty about the United States’ interest in continuing to lead, and in the absence of other interested applicants, the world is desperate for a replacement—even temporarily. Some may actually believe that China merits the job simply because Xi is willing to do it. No doubt many observers also hold out the hope—however misguided—that once China receives the rights of global leadership it will live up to the responsibilities. But the stakes are too high. China may well emerge as the savior of globalization at some point in the future when its deeds better match its words, but global leadership has to be earned on merit, not simply granted in desperation and hope. The world must recognize that globalization with Chinese characteristics is not globalization at all.

Foreign Affairs

[Atlantis]

The US has never been a champion of globalization. The US is the champion of its own interest in a world ruled by Washington. In the same sense, the Chinese would be champions of a world largely controlled by Chinese interests.

[Beren]

If the US had never been a champion of globalisation, we wouldn't speak English. I highly doubt we will ever speak Chinese, because the Chinese will speak English too. The whole globalist agenda is alien to them as well as it's alien to the Russians who still use their Cyrillic alphabet the world will never learn to use.

[MistyTiger]

I highly doubt we will ever speak Chinese, because the Chinese will speak English too.

It depends where you are in China. Like if you want to develop business in some of the more rural areas, you might not be able to make it with just English. Most areas speak the official Mandarin dialect but there are some regions that speak other Chinese dialects.

Some Chinese get a kick out of hearing Westerners speak funny so I think that if you want to do business with China, you at least need to have an elementary knowledge of the language and that then helps you in understanding the culture and why some nuisances we have in the US might not sit well with them.

[Beren]

What I actually mean to say is that it's Anglo culture, and the English language, only that could be global, while the others couldn't, that's why globalism is an Anglo idea mostly. Even if China will be the leading power of the world, we still will speak English, partly because the Chinese themselves will also have to learn it to be able to communicate with the rest of the world.

[Atlantis]

Trump just handed the Asia-Pacific region to China on a golden platter by signing the executive order to formally withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

English wasn't always a global language and it won't always be. Already today, more Internet users use Chinese than English, and as the Chinese contents grows, you'll have to learn Chinese if you want to stay in touch.

Everybody knows by now that the Anglos are so vulgar:


Sorry Beren, you learned the wrong language.

[Beren]

Chinese content will be uploaded in English in the same time it will be uploaded in Chinese. The world won't learn Chinese, neither Russian, nor German. Sorry Atlantis, but both of us will have to live our lives in an Anglo world, not to mention our descendants.

As a matter of fact I wonder if the Chinese want to make their culture and language global or they rather mean to keep them for themselves.

[Political Interest]

As a matter of fact I wonder if the Chinese want to make their culture and language global or they rather mean to keep them for themselves.

If Anglos had any sense they would try to keep their language and culture to themselves as well. Instead the British created a global empire which expanded the British identity to encompass nearly the entire world. Within forty years they will be consumed by this and will gradually vanish into thin air. Cultures which keep to themselves get to maintain their identity. Those which expand will be absorbed by the rest of the globe. Even the Mongols became assimilated into the societies they ruled. Anyhow this is another topic and I do not want to divert the discussion.

[Beren]

Instead the British created a global empire which expanded the British identity to encompass nearly the entire world. Within forty years they will be consumed by this and will gradually vanish into thin air.

Even if the Anglos vanish into thin air they will leave their cultural mark on the world like the Romans did. They left their cultural mark on China as well as Marxism-Leninism did. The world has been irreversibly westernised by the Anglos mostly.

[Atlantis]

As a matter of fact I wonder if the Chinese want to make their culture and language global or they rather mean to keep them for themselves.

The only true civilization will always be in Middle Kingdom (中国). As further you are from that center, the less civilized you are. But there are no limits to the middle kingdom. Other ethnic groups have always been assimilated into Chinese culture. But only the culture of the middle kingdom will prevail as is amply testified by the last 3,500 years of history. The last couple of centuries of Anglo hegemony are a mere aberration, not much more than a footnote in the annals of the middle kingdom.

[benpenguin]

As a matter of fact I wonder if the Chinese want to make their culture and language global or they rather mean to keep them for themselves.

We want to, but as a language Chinese is way too hard to learn... not really designed for propagation.

The only true civilization will always be in Middle Kingdom (中国). As further you are from that center, the less civilized you are. But there are no limits to the middle kingdom. Other ethnic groups have always been assimilated into Chinese culture. But only the culture of the middle kingdom will prevail as is amply testified by the last 3,500 years of history. The last couple of centuries of Anglo hegemony are a mere aberration, not much more than a footnote in the annals of the middle kingdom.

Well, after the colonial powers wiped the floor with our face in the last century, we don't have that kind of confidence anymore. Chinese cultural confidence is now getting rebuilt, but going from revert racism to "China, fuck yeah" there is still some distance to cover

[Bridgeburner]

Geography and demography will always prevent any country in Asia from ever becoming a hyperpower a la the USA. America is a uniquely placed country thanks to being flanked by the Atlantic and Pacific. It is the only country in a nuclear world that is capable of charting the course for the world island. And that won't change anytime soon

[Atlantis]

Well, after the colonial powers wiped the floor with our face in the last century, we don't have that kind of confidence anymore. Chinese cultural confidence is now getting rebuilt, but going from revert racism to "China, fuck yeah" there is still some distance to cover

Like the Japanese, the Chinese grudgingly accepted that the white man had a sort of superiority in certain matters. But the Chinese never stopped being ferociously nationalistic. 17th century Chinese intellectuals tried to establish a duality between technical knowledge and humanistic knowledge, in which, even though Westerners had acquired a certain superiority in technical matters such as building clocks or guns, Chinese culture with its Confucian ethics would always be superior over Western culture. Today, China is on a relentless drive for the state of the art in most technical fields.

In 1868 the Meiji Restoration turned Japan from a medieval shogunate into a modern industrial state that was able to defeat the Russia empire less than 40 years later. The decadence of the Manchu regime, which was incapable of fighting off the colonial powers prevented China from going down the same road.

Geography and demography will always prevent any country in Asia from ever becoming a hyperpower a la the USA. America is a uniquely placed country thanks to being flanked by the Atlantic and Pacific. It is the only country in a nuclear world that is capable of charting the course for the world island. And that won't change anytime soon

Revival of ethnic Anglo nationalism in the UK and US will encourage the formation of alternative trade systems. The pax-Americana like the British Empire depend on being able to exploit the rest of the world. Trump's protectionism to offer the rust belt a false solution is a home goal. A loose trade alliance covering most of the Eurasian continent from Lisbon to Shanghai would dwarf the Anglo empire. As the Ukraine crisis has shown, nuclear power isn't as useful as economic muscle.

[benpenguin]

@Atlantis Well, quick reply is, yes there are plenty of fervent nationalists that will push the narrative that China is superior, but majority of Chinese still believe otherwise (Though that is very rapidly changing, especially since Xi's government who mastered internal propaganda much better than their predecessors)

[Potemkin]

If Anglos had any sense they would try to keep their language and culture to themselves as well. Instead the British created a global empire which expanded the British identity to encompass nearly the entire world. Within forty years they will be consumed by this and will gradually vanish into thin air. Cultures which keep to themselves get to maintain their identity. Those which expand will be absorbed by the rest of the globe. Even the Mongols became assimilated into the societies they ruled. Anyhow this is another topic and I do not want to divert the discussion.

This is a false alternative, PI. Even if a culture keeps to itself and tries to remain isolated from foreign influences, as the Chinese and the Japanese tried to do, they will eventually be invaded and conquered by more expansionist cultures. Either a culture expands, or it dies (or, even worse, ends up as a fly-blown tourist trap for rich foreigners to gawk at). But, as you say, the act of expanding and absorbing other cultures changes the expansionist culture in irreversible and unpredictable ways, both good and bad. This cannot be avoided, PI, and nor should it be avoided. It's life. Being a thriving, living culture means changing, sometimes in ways you don't like. And in life, you have to take the bad with the good. Even the Mongols still exist. And the Romans didn't "vanish into thin air"; they changed, so that they were no longer the same people, but they are still around. In fact, we are all Romans now, just as the entire world is Anglo now.

[Bridgeburner]

Revival of ethnic Anglo nationalism in the UK and US will encourage the formation of alternative trade systems. The pax-Americana like the British Empire depend on being able to exploit the rest of the world. Trump's protectionism to offer the rust belt a false solution is a home goal. A loose trade alliance covering most of the Eurasian continent from Lisbon to Shanghai would dwarf the Anglo empire. As the Ukraine crisis has shown, nuclear power isn't as useful as economic muscle.

You are dreaming mate, there will be no alliance coming out of Eurasia anytime soon given the historical baggage and geographic proximity so many of the major players share with each other.

The reason America CAN exploit most of the world simply comes down to geography and being isolated from the millennia old ingrained ethnic tensions that lay the foundation for conflicts. This is the same response I give anyone who has fanwanks over a Russo-Chinese partnership, it's illogical fundamentally. What is something born out of convenience is laid upon a bed of mutual distrust and clashing aspirations can never be anything more

The entirety of the periphery around China, which is clearly your main contender to displace the US, (with perhaps the exception of South Korea) is virulently and racially charged against any sort of Chinese leadership or dominance, and thus is essentially in tow and aligned with American policy. Now that Ukraine is a non-issue, the focus will be on Islam and China as primary concerns. I'm not seeing Japan, India, or even Russia enthusiastically jumping on board with a Sino-German axis.