China's Progressing while Regressing

"China is Paying the Price of Social Unrest"

The author of this article, Pei, brings up a very interesting and paradoxical point regarding China's transformation in recent decades. China, yes, has definitely grown economically, industrially, and technologically. However, I honestly believe this was something the state desired and instituted.
My basis for this assumption comes from Pei's article. He states that the number of social uprisings has shown staggering increases in recent years.

The number of so-called "mass incidents" (sit-ins, riots, strikes, and demonstrations) reached 74,000 is 2004, an all-time high, and involved about 3.7m individuals. In 1994, by comparison, there were about 10,000 such incidents, with 730,000 participants.

Pei also notes that the triggers for these incidents are social and economic policies, such as high tax and land seizures, that help to facilitate the economic and industrial growth of China. Chinese people may not agree with how their country is changing and be angry that they must pay the price regardless.

This could be avoided with social care of people but such a climate is not present. China does not care for its poor, aging, or other interest groups and so the Chinese people feel they are taken from without being given anything. It's no wonder they are acting out more and more each year.

China wants to fix this so they can have a good reputation with the rest of the world. However, this is not a good reason as this, too, is a corrupt endeavor. The government is corrupt and just wants band-aids for the problems that can easily save face but do not fix the problems (i.e. publicly punish a select few officials while letting other continue their corrupt ways). If this continues, then the protests will, too.

How China and the U.S. view the "China Threat"

Reving up the China Threat

In Klare's article regarding how the U.S. defines and is reacting to the rise of China as a superpower, he asks the great question of is China a threat just to the economy of the U.S. and its current position of dominance or does China threaten the security of the U.S. as a state? Also interesting to note is that he separates the two. This leads me to believe that the article focuses on the traditional and dominant discourse of security as solely focusing on military action. However, he also notes that the U.S. will react to economic threats with military force, thus alluding to the idea that security threats can now come from sources other than military action but cannot be resolved in such means yet.

Currently, the U.S. has a system for deciding if another nation-state is posing a threat to security. The criteria are whether the state is becoming a "new rival," is capable of world power, resembles the likes of the Soviet Union, during the Cold War, and is taking in resources and supplies to prepare for military action.

This leads Klare to believe that the U.S. is labeling the Chinese state as a threat to U.S. security. The basis for placing this label rests of a few key issues. First of all, China has been cited as building up its missile and weapon reserves and increasing the missile range around its state. A report filed annually by the government shows that China is growing its missile program. China has begun to purchase submarines, fighter planes, and destroyers. Also, the U.S. claims that the missiles are being aimed at the U.S.'s allies. China has recently been able to afford missiles from Russia capable of reaching Japan and Taiwan.

A good point, to which I agree, that officials in Beijing make for taking such action to build a military defense is just that. It's for China's defense. Klare notes that China is afraid it is being contained and threatened by the bases the U.S. has built around then and the missiles being constantly being pointed at them. This has caused China to be insecure in its own security and has naturally began to take measures to protect themselves. Of course, as Klare also notes,

But any nation, when confronted with a major military buildup by a potential adversary off its shores, is bound to feel threatened and will act accordingly.

Simply put, the reason for China having a missile program is the U.S. started it and the Chinese are just reacting.

Finally, the U.S. is worried because China has tried to buy out a small California-based oil company and is threatening to change the flow of oil distribution throughout the whole world. It is well-known that oil is not an infinite resource and is the most demanded raw material in the world. This makes the good a source of life and power in the world. Since China has grown, it has increased its oil consumption tremendously without the prospect of more oil being created in the world. Now, the U.S. is feeling threatened that China will take away the oil America needs and, thus, shift its position of power to below China. This shows that the actors remain the two states (China vs. U.S.) but the issue of security now moves into new, economic, territory. To the U.S., if China starts to ally with Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich, yet troubled nations, this will threaten the economic and military power the U.S. has had in the past.

However, it is interesting to note here that even though the security issue here is not over a military threat, the U.S.'s solution is still to use military force. Klare goes on to note that U.S. will kill the threat by placing more bases around China and maintain its superiority in military technology. The feeling I get from the article is that the U.S.'s notion of China as a threat still pits state against state and focuses on both military and economic threats. What the U.S. leaves out that should be prominent in the modern notion of security is including oil businesses, individuals, and MNCs as actors and using means other than military to react the the threat perceive from China.

Discourses of Security in China: Towards a critical turn?

After reviewing how the U.S. perceives security regarding China, I looked at how China views the notion of security of itself against others. Clearly, China's notion matches the U.S. in that it believes security lies solely in protecting one's state against the threat of another state, although this is not openly stated in Zhang;s article.

China is a very insecure nation for the reasons Klare states in his article. China is seen as a global threat by other nations for the fact that China is a rising power, and non-democratic at that. Thus, China's view on security is forced to be a reactionary one. China knows that the global economy and identity can impact their security but officials in Beijing have to focus on military because it seems to be the most immediate and dangerous threat at this time.

It's important to look at the history and environment of China to correctly understand their view on security. China was never a wealthy nation but is becoming one. Also, China knows we are in a post-Cold War era and its identity as a communist nation automatically labels it a threat to liberal, democratic nations of the world. So, the view from state actors is that China is being looked at even more closely that any other nation.

Chinese scholars have not put much work into the field of security yet, so all of their notions are based on security of past eras. However, new discourses are emerging and China is waiting to see where this leaves them. There is a possibility, as Zhang states, of superpowers falling to a level where multiple powers can emerge and be on a more level field. This multi-polarity will change the actors of security (perhaps make room for more individual and community actors) and also what security entails (protection of resources, economy, etc. will be included). Or, will security only expand to other areas but not other actors?

Security in China is very complex and still unknown. Currently, China is in reactionary mode to the rest of the world's disdain for non-democratic ideals. However, if China's economic power grows and it is able to become an even player on the global stage, this notion may change and security will then start to encompass ideas other than military and actors other than states.

The Weight of History

A nation's history helps to shape the way external forces impact it.

It is very bold to say that whether or not a nation can be conquered by another is the prey's own fault. However, this can be partly true. Many nations have been threatened and conquered by imperial forces while others have resisted. The same forces can be said to have been exerted on them and yet the product differs entirely from situation to situation. Beeson, the author of this article Regionalism and Globalization in East Asia, states that a nation's history, characteristics, and people impact their future contacts with outside parties tremendously. I believe I can agree with that.

China

"... Response to the European challenge was a consequence of internal degeneration, rather than simple European superiority" (pg. 31). This was the reason Beeson gives for China's submission to European dominance in the 1800s after the fall of the Ming Dynasty. China is historically ethnocentric, divided, and introverted. This made a very good environment for the Europeans to permeate and weaken from within. Yes, it can be said that European forces were very strong. But, China was so characteristically weak that they fell more quickly, than, say, Japan.

It's interesting that Beeson blames Confuscian thought and an air of superiority of the Chinese for their fall to a elite and self-superior power like Europe. Essentially the Chinese refused to give in a little of their customs and greatness in order to be spared total domination but thus subjected themselves more easily to such a fate. I do not think we can seprate China's history and Europe's history from placing blame for China's fall. I believe it was the interaction of the two that produced this result. China's superiority complex and resistance angered the Europeans moreso than any other nation simply because Europe thought itself and its ideas to also be superior. What I mean is, not only was China's weakness a cause of their downfall but also Europe's increased motivation to dominate China even more forcefully. China's weakness made Europe even stronger. Thus, European action played off of Chinese culture to create a shared outcome between the two actors.

Japan

Japan contrasts greatly to China and thus their fate in the imperial era reflects it. Europe did not see that Japan was just as literate as they were and believed Japan to be worthless to them. Also, Japan allowed Europe to trade and exchange ideas with them a little more openly. Thus, Europe attempts to dominate and threaten Japan's security were less because Japan was less susceptible to collapse with an open mind. Also, Europe was not challenged to work harder to secure Japan because this nation was not a elusive as China. Again, Beeson makes the point that a nation's history changes how its future will be controlled.

Not only does this allow Japan to hold its own against European domination. Japan also becomes a center of competition and rivalry with China. The nation, allowing itself to stay afloat by accepting some Western ideals, is free to dominate parts of Asia as well. This sets Japan up to be just like Europe in its quest to take over other lands rather than be taken over themselves. Japan begins to take on the same goals and means as European imperialists within the Asian region. Thus, the way Japan interacted with the rest of Asia then and now is reflected in their past reaction to potential European threats.

This historical resistance by Japan helped give the nation a reputation for asserting Asia's worth in many areas and also for going against Western influence. This helped them to stop external domination but also caused them to be resented by the rest of East Asia. China for trying to take over certain regions and Southeast Asia for exploiting its resources. Then and now, Japan can be noted as having a sense of superiority and higher value than other Asian nations. I think this is definetly the case as much of the world sees how greatly Japan differs from the rest of Asia in all areas of living.

I'm not sure how this article ties into the Olympics article yet. All I can note is that it shows how the Olympics can have a huge diplomatic effect on the region. The region is characterized by instability and poor regional relations. Thus, it makes sense that sports diplomacy could potentially improve their ties moreso than other, more stable regions. The fact that China has been a historically weak area for others to prey on makes it a hotbed for controversy during the Olympics as the nation tries to show the world it will no longer allow this.

Beijing Olympics 2008: Focus on China

Countdown to Beijing, The Choice for China: Propaganda or Positive Change?



Victor Cha, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., believes that the Olympics will be the crux of China's entrance into the modern, advanced world. It is not clear whether the China is actually working to resolve the human rights, environmental, and other violations it has made or the nation is simply placing a band-aid on issues to ensure a successful and more importantly profitable Olympics. One thing Cha makes clear is that the Olympics will continue to impact China and its neighbors long after the athletes leave from the brand new airport China built specifically for the 2007 games.

China's Issues

China has absolutely made immense progress in the past years regarding economics, manufacturing, international cooperation, free competition, and, most recently, the environment. Cha regards the Olympics as China's opportune moment to begin "showcasing its rapid economic growth and prosperity" on the world stage. However, I believe that the world is already aware that China has taken over many areas of clothing, electronic, and other types of manufacturing.

China's poor labor practices, domestic human rights violations, and lack of safety standards in the production of toys, plastics, and other exported goods is a negative issue overshadowing this progress. This issue impacts not only China but the entire world. The mistreatment of workers deters many from purchasing China's goods and the recent discovery of poisons in plastic toys harms people on the other side of the globe. This is the issue China must address and actively work to change if its foreign relations and trade are to improve.

Another negative issue regarding China is its oil and arms trade to and from Darfur, The Sudan. China, Cha notes, has received criticism from journalists and activist groups for continuing to supply arms to the Sudanese government and purchase oil from Sudanese companies in the face of the genocide occuring in Darfur. The world is very unhappy with China's disregard for the seriousness of ethnic cleansing by the government in the region and this has hurt China's reputation in regards to Olympic ideals. The world has every right to disrespect China in this respect because it shows that they are not up to the human rights standards set by many of the most influential nations in the world.

According to Cha, however, China is openly improving this. They have been supporting UN sanctions against The Sudan and have even sent envoys to the region of Darfur to bring aid. It is not a coincidence that these moves have come only in recent years as the Olympics have been approaching. While any progress in the Darfur crisis is welcome, it does not hide the fact that China is still aiding in the killings by supplying the weapons to the Janjaweed. Again, here it is obvious that China is simply placing a band-aid on the problem for the sake of public relations.

China has also been cited as one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. According to an article the International Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/20/business/emit.php, China surpassed the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, China releases the most of the gases known to cause global warming out of any other nation in the world. This is a major problem that, again, hurts not only the people and environment of China but of the entire world.

The solution to the problem outlined in Cha's article? Ban a million cars and plant 200 million trees. This is an amazing initiative to begin with. However, the only way to truly reverse this statistic is to continue with it for the long-haul. China must continue to plant more and more Carbon Dioxide consuming trees and implement a public transportation system to allow its people to continue living their normal lives with the absence of their banned cars. Again, Cha reports that China is working to fix their environmental impact but fails to highlight that it is only a temporary fix meant to appease the public eye.

Regional Issues

Cha makes an interesting point that Asia is a region where a historic "tradition of sports diplomacy is arguably more prominent than in other regions." Some examples he cites are ping-pong helping Sino-American relations (presumably during the Vietnam conflict) and the merging of North and South Korea as an Olympic team. Also, it can be said that the 1988 Olympic Games held in Seoul, South Korea spurred the creation of a democratic system in the nation. These are incredible stepping stones for improved world-relations in the region.

The reason that more progress has been noted in these regions is because they are so much further behind in democratic and other ideals than other regions where the games have been held. Asia is thought of in the world as backwards in many aspects so there is more room for improvement. While this seems worthy of praise, I'm not sure how accurate Cha's statement is.

From what basis to we compare China's current state to? Western ideals and western systems? If this is the case, then one can say Asia does benefit more from the politics of the Olympics than other areas because the Olympics promote such western ideals. However, this way of thinking is harmful because it simply places western thinking against eastern thinking as the correct way. Asia has more contrast to Olympic democratic ideals than any other nation, so it fits that many see it as the perfect place for improvement via sports diplomacy.

What I wonder is this: Will the impact of the olympic games make such a lasting and positive change in China as it did in South Korea or will these recent changes turn out to be band-aids ripped off as soon as the initial bleeding stops? Do the people of China want this? And finally, is taking on global ideals of democracy, conservation, and human rights protection the only route for a better life in China?

Welcome to my blog on the politics of security in East Asia!

When a country is in harmony with the Tao,
the factories make trucks and tractors.
When a country goes counter to the Tao,
warheads are stockpiled outside the cities.

There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy.

Whoever can see through all fear
will always be safe.

-Lao Tzu (from the Tao Te Ching)

This quote really shows how security was looked at in the past and even how it's viewed by the majority today. Security is seen as defending yourself (your state) with warheads from your enemy (other states). Lao Tzu did not want war but safety and security for the people of China. However, he failed to recognize that security means so much more than keeping war at bay.

As this blog will explore, the definition of, actors involved in, and approach to security has begun to shift. Security can now include addressing economic, environmental, human rights, and other issues that threaten the peace, happiness, and stability of an actor. The actors in security used to be states but have now come to include individuals, regions, multi-national corporations (MNCs), trans-national governing bodies, and other entities. Secure ends can now be reached by means other than military action. Security will now require a synergistic approach where complex solutions are reached.