Opinion, A16 October 14, 2007
EVERY day there are newspaper articles analyzing current events in China. It may be positive, such as lauding their seemingly unending economic growth, or negative, such as lamenting freedom of press limitations. It may encourage increasing ties across the Pacific, or it may sound a dire warning about our rising competitor in the East. The focus of interest runs the gamut from global economic concerns to the fine points of Chinese opera. With the notable exception of Iraq, our eyes are fixed upon China more than any other nation on the planet. We are fascinated and anxious all at once, trying hard to understand this intriguing country from afar.
Why all the attention? Because China is indeed rising, and it is only a matter of time until America is no longer the world's only superpower. The Economist projects that China's economic output will match America's by 2020. How long then until China's economic resources, military might and cultural influences displace U.S. prominence? Even more importantly, is that good or bad? A recent Pasadena Star - News editorial pointed out that being the "top dog" on the planet breeds resentment, so perhaps the U.S. would actually be better off as No.2.
That all depends on what sort of nation China becomes. With 1.3 billion hard-working people, and a culture that stretches back 4,000 years, China has seemingly unlimited resources. She used to be called the "middle kingdom," the hub of civilization. Many policy makers in China today believe she will again become the middle kingdom as they pursue greatness in the 21st century. Perhaps so. The question then becomes who will China be? Will she be a powerful but open and free society, a force for good in the world? Or will she wield her power autocratically, as a force to be contended with?
The answer clearly lies primarily with the Chinese people. It is up to them to chart the course of their destiny as a nation as they wrestle with challenges such as poverty, corruption, environmental issues and human rights concerns. China's President - Hu Jintao - seems to be leading the country in a positive direction, balancing the demands of the old power structure with the need to move forward. For example, increasing numbers of top government positions are now being filled based on competency as opposed to ideology.
But there is another force that is also helping to shape the outcome of this drama - America. As the current sole superpower, the U.S. has an enormous ability to support or impede China's efforts to move forward. Based on congressional statements and media commentators, public opinion ranges from Sinophobia to blind support. Is China a communist nation on the march that should be resisted at every opportunity, so as to protect U.S. prominence? Or should we turn a blind eye to any concerns and simply support whatever directions China chooses, so as to avoid imperialism?
Either extreme is a recipe for disaster. If the U.S. resists China at every turn as a feared competitor, we must not then be surprised if she becomes our enemy. Alternatively, if America believes we must leave our values behind to appease China, then we should not be surprised to find ourselves doing business with a nation that is tone deaf to Western concerns. What to do?
The U.S. should stand in the "principled center" of the political spectrum, and find ways to relate to China that are neither imperialistic nor naive. It is not imperialistic to ask questions of a friend regarding human rights concerns in the hope that reasonable solutions can be found. And it is not naive to welcome China's rising, even if all concerns have not yet been resolved.
America must find how to promote legitimate Western values in a sensitive manner, without causing loss of face (humiliation) for the Chinese government. At the same time, the U.S. must learn equally-important Eastern values such as humility. This is the hallmark of a healthy friendship, one that does not fear an occasional critical comment.
For example, Amnesty International and others are concerned that inclusion of a China Olympics 2008 float in the New Year's Rose Parade may undermine efforts to improve human rights in China. Some argue that the float invitation should be withdrawn, and yet were that to be done it would humiliate the Chinese government and likely not improve conditions on the ground. Others argue it is inappropriate to even raise such concerns since they are none of our business, and yet basic human rights are intrinsic to Western civilization and relevant to international affairs.
What to do? A principled centrist approach would be to let the China float roll unimpeded, and at the same time seek reasonable means to express concern - such as a statement encouraging human rights progress. In this way, values are not ignored, yet the bilateral friendship is maintained. The float can celebrate the Olympics, which brings nations together in peace and pageantry; and the statement can provide notice that human rights are indeed of critical importance. The hope is for the two nations to learn from each other and eventually adopt shared values.
Principled centrism will not please extremists on either side. Some human rights activists may protest anything short of withdrawing the float as selling out. Some Chinese officials may reject any statement on human rights as foreign interference. But the majority in both nations will likely applaud. If China is challenged as a friend, rather than bullied as a threat, she is to become a peaceable middle kingdom with whom the nations of the world can easily work. The powerful foe, or leave Western values behind in a vain attempt to appease.
May the U.S. have the wisdom to reach out in friendship, principles intact, to our rising neighbor across the Pacific. Sino-American collaboration can flourish, making it more likely both nations will learn from each other and grow - regardless of who is No. 1.
tkelly@depree.org
Timothy A. Kelly is the director of De Pree Leadership Center Public Policy Institute in Pasadena.