Mass Psychosis: China’s Retribution Syndrome
http://www.photomuse.org/
There exists a condition so prevalent in China that it borders on mass psychosis and, in common with many such phenomena, its root causes are political and historical curricula with zero debate and a straight-jacketed media that reinforces the classroom message.
One of the nationwide consequences of these policies is a condition that I’ve decided to call State-Induced Retribution Syndrome (SIRS).
SIRS manifests itself most obviously as a nationalistic desire for revenge against all those countries considered to have transgressed on Chinese soil or to have procured territory or wrested artifacts from the Middle Kingdom in the pre-communist era.
Lust for ‘getting your own back’ is nothing new in the field of human psychology, and resentments can understandably linger for generations. But in the natural order of things resentments dissipate with each passing generation until past events no longer stand in the way of good relations.
However, when historical grievances are deliberately fostered and encouraged, as China’s leaders do with such relish, the state is accountable for an undercurrent of discontent that have the potential to spill over in a nationalistic wave of rage. It’s a dangerous and irresponsible game, primarily because a heightened and collective case of SIRS cannot be readily attenuated.
China needs a new generation of leaders confident enough to face up to their own history and to look more – far more – objectively at China’s past in relation to other countries without deliberately fuelling the emotive kneejerk condemnations that are symptomatic of SIRS.
All they need do is allow different historical viewpoints and calm, open discussion of the issues raised throughout academia. Of course, this also means accepting that China has not been the Planet’s only ‘victim’ and that she has occasionally made victims of others.
Here is an example of how it works:
Between 1914 and 1945 Britain and Germany stood on either side of global conflicts that took warfare to new levels of killing, depravity, and destruction. Those years are not forgotten by either country, but despite the often deeply harrowing accounts of some aspects of that period in history, there is no presentation of the attendant resentment associated with SIRS when Japan is the topic of the day in China.
If Britain and Germany disagree, as they have recently over economic issues, their respective populations don’t give way to mass hysteria induced by perceptions of each other that are dressed in the cloak of wartime propaganda and stereotypes.
Rather, there is an understanding that the appalling acts of past conflicts were of a different age, and were not inspired by, or present in, the minds of the current generation. Sure, there are still crackpot jingoists and holocaust apologists, but they are firmly on the lunatic fringe. The majority of people look back not with bitterness, but through a desire to learn and understand how we got to be where we are today.
Those looking for a colonialist example should consider India; plenty of bad shit went down there, but SIRS is not one of India’s present day ills. By and large, India and Britain have shared a good relationship since the days of empire, because that relationship is not defined by a time when one was colonist and the other colonised.
Not so China. Through the mechanism of SIRS, China considers its relationship with Britain in terms of the need to avenge the opium trade, the Boxers, or over-exuberance at the Summer Palace. China, or more specifically the Chinese government, have cultivated specific strains of SIRS not only for Britain, but also for Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India, Russia, France, America, Portugal, Holland, ‘the west’, Tibet, and Taiwan. You name the country or region, and China will regurgitate a list of hard-wired grievances.
That’s a lot of beef. Too much beef, in fact. And like a plugged volcano, eventually something’s going to blow.
Nobody is saying we should forget the past, but there is a need for a balanced historical record without a nationalistic agenda. If such measures are not taken to eradicate SIRS in China, she is a certainty for strained international relations or even armed conflict in the next decade.
In short, it’s time for China to get over it. If she can’t, then the so-called ‘peaceful rise’ will go the same way as Chamberlain’s ‘peace in our time’. And we don’t want to go there again.
January 18th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Great post Stuart.
That’s the key isn’t it. The Japanese stuff aside, the whole Eight-Nation Alliance thing irritates the hell out of me. China, as we know it know, wasn’t even “China” then. It was a massive area which had been ruled (in force) by a foreign group for several hundred years.
And the fact that the Summer Palace was trashed should be a matter of pride for the now Han-run nation. It was built by a repressive foreign conqueror.
But then… that would be applying some semblance of logic to an illogical situation.
January 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
[...] the original post here: Mass Psychosis: China’s Retribution Syndrome Tags: 2009-at-951-am, china, chinese, country, middle, News, one-response, Politics, psychosis, [...]
January 18th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Thanks Ryan.
I never considered that angle with the Summer Palace. I might give it a spin in one of the fen qing infested China Daily forums
January 21st, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Guys, see some unequal treaties between Qing gov and foreign powers. The Qing emproers thought they were Chinese. They used the words like “Zhongguo”, “Zhongguoren”. Please Check.
http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%8D%97%E4%BA%AC%E6%9D%A1%E7%BA%A6&variant=zh-tw
http://www.ydjh.chc.edu.tw/society/history/historyimage/8.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Extension_of_Hong_Kong_Territory
If you donot know Chinese, ask someone to help you.
It will be kind if the west countries return the cultural relics belonging to China.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:26 am
“It will be kind if the west countries return the cultural relics belonging to China.”
I agree. But it would also be kind, and diplomatic, if China would stop treating the issue like an ongoing insult by the people of those countries in possession of relics: THEY WEREN’T RESPONSIBLE!!
And another thing. China needs to talk as much about the self-destruction of its own cultural heritage a little more, because the damage done by the Chinese people themselves far outweighs any looting and sacking initiated by foreigners.
There should be a sensible timetable and agreement for the return of artefacts. I’ve said before, China will get nowhere by making aggressive demands.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Gemany applogized to the world for the 2nd world war. What british and french have done for China and Chinese people?
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
A question, why you like living in an “EVIL” country?
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:53 am
“What british and french have done for China and Chinese people?”
If WW2 is your benchmark, it would be more appropriate to thank Britain and France than to seek an apology.
Britain has been invaded, occupied, or attacked by Danes, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Romans, French, Spanish, Norwegians in her history. These dbout apologies.
Besides this, the question you ask is symptomatic of the posts topic. It really is time to move on.
Reply #7 doesn’t warrant a response.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Nah…don’t see it myself. There is of course some propaganda in the schools and on the TV but the average Zhou is not that bitter. Most Chinese “hate” is aimed fair and square at the Japanese and certainly not at the Russians, Brits etc.
You could argue that China needs to get over what happened, but then again you coulld also argue that the Japanese government hasn’t properly apologised and that maintaining the Yasakuni shrine and its museum is unforgivably insulting.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:40 am
“…the average Zhou is not that bitter. Most Chinese “hate” is aimed fair and square at the Japanese and certainly not at the Russians, Brits etc.”
While I tend to agree with this in broad strokes, my principle argument is that the Chinese government can raise levels of resentment against (choose your country)far too readily and without reasonable discourse of the underlying issue; an issue which, likely as not, will be petty in nature, propagandised to the hilt, and nurturing of widespread ill-feeling towards the country (or race) in question.
Thanks for commenting, Kim. Consider yourself blogrolled.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I think the problem is nationalism in general. Belief in the system of nation-states. I also think that in this way the whole world is still based on the principles we were supposed to reject after WW2 and we can’t point fingers.
But, I live in Shanghai and totally understand where this post is coming from.
Only last week my wife (Chinese) and two friends from a music gig got into a similar situation. One ‘foreign’ guy with them was accosted by a local man and the two of them had a bit of push and shove – but no punching or real fighting and the foreign guy ran off. The local guy insisted my wife had to come to the police station to be a witness to the ‘assault’.
Basically nothing had happened – but this guy literally cried shouted and screamed at the police that if they didn’t find and jail the foreigner then it was shame on the Han race and the Chinese nation. I sat there for 6 hours waiting for him to come down so we could all go home.
Also, some local guy knocked over my friends scooter and damaged it a year or two back. When he asked for the money the guy got aggressive and then a crowd gathered around him and his Chinese girlfriend. People started shouting at his girlfriend calling her a wh*re and and filthy traitor for siding with her husband and not the random street guy who had damaged their bike.
But we mustn’t forget – immigrants to the UK get similar levels of abuse back home and we also have some national newspapers who love to demonize and blame them.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Andy – thanks for commenting and sharing your experiences.
I’m building up to a serious rant against racial prejudice in China, particularly with respect to the aggressive denials of responsibility when clearly on the wrong side of a dispute, and the really nasty insults levelled at Chinese spouses of non-Chinese.
You’re right to say that the UK (nor any country) is not free of such prejudice, but I can’t remember one instance of a Caucasian Brit being called a whore for marrying a black guy and a crowd gathering in support of the abuser.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
“China, as we know it know, wasn’t even “China” then. It was a massive area which had been ruled (in force) by a foreign group for several hundred years.”
Geez, there wasn’t even China (what is “China” then?) back then and since the Manchus were not Chinese (What is “Chinese”? Who were the Chinese?), it was perfectly OK for more nasty foreigners to come and do what what they did?
“And the fact that the Summer Palace was trashed should be a matter of pride for the now Han-run nation. It was built by a repressive foreign conqueror.”
So since it was the Qing court who commissioned it, it wasn’t Chinese. So it’s OK for you to burn it down.
You people never learn.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
“And another thing. China needs to talk as much about the self-destruction of its own cultural heritage a little more, because the damage done by the Chinese people themselves far outweighs any looting and sacking initiated by foreigners. ”
So find out if your own family memebers habasically he is saying, if your house was intruded by a pathetic low-life thief, instead of focusing on the crime that was committed, you should ve been stealing. Do they not teach you shame in the uk, stuart?
“There should be a sensible timetable and agreement for the return of artefacts. I’ve said before, China will get nowhere by making aggressive demands.”
What aggressive demands? China’s demands are no different from the demands made by Egypt and Greece.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
“I’m building up to a serious rant against racial prejudice in China, particularly with respect to the aggressive denials of responsibility when clearly on the wrong side of a dispute, and the really nasty insults levelled at Chinese spouses of non-Chinese.”
Of course, all you do all day after all is ranting about China and the Chinese. More can’t hurt.
“You’re right to say that the UK (nor any country) is not free of such prejudice, but I can’t remember one instance of a Caucasian Brit being called a whore for marrying a black guy and a crowd gathering in support of the abuser.”
The nasty colonial power who conquered, killed and enslaved so many has certainly has come a long way to be where it is today. Savor the moment.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
“If WW2 is your benchmark, it would be more appropriate to thank Britain and France than to seek an apology. ”
Why should the Chinese thank the brits and the French? The Chinese should thank the Americans and the Russians, but the brits and the French? The brits did NOTHING except being chased out of HK and Singapore. Even in Europe, the US and the Soviets did most of the fighting, what did the brits do other than landing in Normandy (yeah, leave the tough spots to the Americans, how convenient) and waltzing into France following the Americans.
the brits? Meh.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:20 am
“You people never learn.”
China, on the other hand, learned very well. Just take a look (if you dare) at the wanton murders and destruction of the CR, not to mention the systematic obliteration and looting of the monasteries of Tibet in the last half century.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:24 am
“Do they not teach you shame in the uk, stuart?”
Shame? I don’t see the relevance. Do they teach historical objectivity and the rights of free expression in China?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:27 am
“China, on the other hand, learned very well. Just take a look (if you dare) at the wanton murders and destruction of the CR, not to mention the systematic obliteration and looting of the monasteries of Tibet in the last half century.”
China has sure learned from its mistakes. You don’t see anybody defending the CR, do you? Yet you see people like stuart and Ryan defending what the brits did. That’s why I said “you people never learn”. Case in point.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:31 am
“Of course, all you do all day after all is ranting about China and the Chinese.”
Wrong. My concerns and objections are levelled at the Chinese government because, left unchecked and wielding increasing military, political, and economic clout, their net influence will make the world an even more unstable place than it is already.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:32 am
“Shame? I don’t see the relevance. Do they teach historical objectivity and the rights of free expression in China?”
I don’t know about you and you brits, but casually whitewashing serious crimes committed by saying something to the effect of “hey, your own people have done it too!” is shameless in my book.
Knowing shame is 100 times more important than “historical objectivity and the rights of free expression”.
Speaking of freedom of expression, the mere fact that you are (if you are still shameless breathing the dirty air of China) still ranting about China without any hassle just shows China too, has come a long way (even though it still has a long way to go) in this regard.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:36 am
“…what did the brits do other than landing in Normandy”
I think you’re oversimplifying just a tad. Further, I sense a degree of deflected shame at the back seat taken by the communist party during the conflict.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:41 am
” My concerns and objections are levelled at the Chinese government because, left unchecked and wielding increasing military, political, and economic clout, their net influence will make the world an even more unstable place than it is already.”
Oh yeah? Then what about some of the BS stuff you wrote in stuff like “TEFL China: the beleaguered expat teacher”? Chinese government you say?
Your observations of China, its government, its people are so off-base and skewed that resemble those of people who grew up being told by their media what a bad country China is, you know those people who have never been here. Yet you live here, you have been here for how long? China the evil empire thing is so childish. You are like those FLG zombies who see nothing positive about China. How can this be true?
And how does your work keep China “in check”? The stupid thing about you and people like you is that you don’t realize the best way to have it your way is to win people over. This is not how you win people over. You are creating enemies and helping reinforce the old prejudice (on both sides).
February 18th, 2009 at 12:41 am
“You don’t see anybody defending the CR, do you?”
To defend it would be to discuss it. Like so many important issues and events in modern Chinese history, that simply doesn’t happen.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:44 am
“Knowing shame is 100 times more important …”
Hence the ceaseless demands for apologies issued by the Chinese government. Will the Chinese government express its shame for ‘89 on the 20th anniversary in June?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:48 am
“I think you’re oversimplifying just a tad. Further, I sense a degree of deflected shame at the back seat taken by the communist party during the conflict.”
At least the communists (not even the national government then) fought the Japanese. What did the brits do? Getting their asses kicked in France and were almost totally annihilated but saved because of Hitler’s stupid decision (dunkirk). And again getting their assed kicked in HK and Singapore.
Let’s face it, stuart: China was overran, so was britain. Nothing to thank the brits for.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:50 am
“To defend it would be to discuss it. Like so many important issues and events in modern Chinese history, that simply doesn’t happen.”
China is not a democracy. Duh. In case you didn’t know. What did you expect before you came here?
“Hence the ceaseless demands for apologies issued by the Chinese government. Will the Chinese government express its shame for ‘89 on the 20th anniversary in June?”
I personally believe it will one day, just not soon. But by your logic that nobody needs to apologize, I am OK with the Japanese, the brits and the CCP and everyone else not apologizing.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:54 am
“In short, it’s time for China to get over it. If she can’t, then the so-called ‘peaceful rise’ will go the same way as Chamberlain’s ‘peace in our time’. And we don’t want to go there again.”
For the second time I agree with you stuart, that China needs to get over it. But I don’t see how China not getting over it will lead us all to world war three.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:59 am
“You are creating enemies and helping reinforce the old prejudice (on both sides).”
Wrong again. I highlight those stories and issues that are not permitted to circulate freely in China. If that touches the sensibilities of some people, then so be it.
Enemies? The only enmity that has ever developed between me and individuals in China has been on those occasions that my wife has been insulted or someone has tried to cheat me. Disagreeing with students, colleagues, or friends over politics, media, or history has never come close to creating an enemy of anyone.
I don’t believe that any government has the right to make ’sensitive’ issues ‘off limits’ to discussion. Such a policy doesn’t serve the development of a nation or its people, and I’ve never subscribed to such nonsense in China.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:11 am
“But I don’t see how China not getting over it will lead us all to world war three.”
Well, I don’t see apocalypse happening anytime soon, although the potential for ‘flashpoints’ to flare up is ever present. What I do foresee, however, is China’s military seeing action on its own borders in the next decade.
I say that because powerful countries have a habit of flexing their muscles and China seems to have a several historical border ‘issues’ where nationalistic sentiment could light the fuse.
We all want to believe in China’s ‘peaceful rise’, but I for one am far from convinced. Until the day that China has proved itself beyond all question to be a responsible stakeholder I think we should all keep chipping away.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:23 am
It is not that those discussions should be off-limit, it is your take, your angle of seeing things in China is so skewed that you can’t see things more objectively. Of course we are all subjective here, but you see China as a dark evil empire, that’s just childish, to say the least.
Out of curiosity, how do your Chinese students or friends (if you still have any) see your views and your writings on this blog? How does your conversation with your Chinese students or friends start? “Man, the weather sucks today. The air sucks. Your government sucks. The world will be in big trouble if we don’t do something about your evil government. By the way did you finish the paper that is due today?” haha
I understand your fear about an aggressive China since you think powerful countries all have the tendency to flex their muscles, my argument would be that for the most part in China’s 3000 year history, when China was powerful it wasn’t aggressive.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Not to stick my foot into this fight too far but Pfeffer, I wanted to gently suggest that you at least moderate the statement:
“my argument would be that for the most part in China’s 3000 year history, when China was powerful it wasn’t aggressive.”
The Han, Sui, and Tang were certainly expansive empires, as were the Mongols in the Yuan and the Manchus in the Qing (I add the latter two separately because I’m not sure how “China” is being defined here). The process by which the fringes of empire became part of historical “China” was not always a candy and flowers affair.
On a different note, Stuart, I might ask if labeling the burning of Yuanmingyuan as “Over-exuberance” was an attempt at hyperbole? Because it really was a shameless transgression on Qing sovereignty and that whole war was a sham. I understand the frustration at how these events get played up in the media and schools while things like the Great Leap Forward or the GPCR get short shrift, but that still doesn’t mean the anger at the outrages perpetrated by the foreign powers against the Qing Empire in the 19th century is entirely unjustified.
Perhaps it was hyperbole and I just misread it. Anyway, carry on.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Jeremiah,
Han mostly fought the Xiongnu/Huns who were periodically raiding border (if there was such a thing as border back then) towns. Sui’s invasion (here we go) of Koguryo wasn’t entirely unjustified either (if you think what the west did to China, India etc. can somehow be justified at all), since Koguryo was raiding Sui villages in Liaodong, plus Koguryo was thought to be allying with the Eastern Turk/Xitujue. Tang had military garrisons in the area that’s known as Xinjiang today, mostly to keep an eye on the Turks. Yuan was part of the much bigger Mongol Empire who was by all means extremely aggressive, but Mongol Empire wasn’t China, China was part of it and conquered by it, no? Qing was expansive, yes, but aggressive? Only if you consider what they did in Xinjiang with Junggar Mongols
an aggressive act.
Look Jeremiah, if we are back to discussing whether China has ever invaded anyone or whether China was ever aggressive, of course the answer is yes. But China has not been aggressive in the way that colonial western powers (including the US) had been in the past several centuries. Will a powerful China become aggressive in the future? Of course anything is possible. But chances of that are slim, in my opinion.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Pfeffer,
Yeah, I agree we’re treading on ground well worn in the past few weeks, and I wasn’t necessarily disputing your statement so much as hoping for a more nuanced modification of such a bold stance.
The “Dynasties” were all empires, and the process by which the rather small area of the Qin became the much larger area of today’s PRC reflected a process of expansion which was not always peaceful. While “China” never had overseas colonies (though certainly there was a historical process of colonization on Taiwan), the westward expansion of “Chinese” civilization (continued under the Manchus in the 18th and 19th centuries) has parallels in other historical contexts.
As I said, I didn’t think your statement was invalid, just that it probably deserved to be qualified.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:14 am
Jeremiah,
Certainly. If you think about it, “China” (if you will) was merely confined to Henan, Shanxi, eastern Shaanxi and Shandong during Shang, to become what it is today, of course it was expansive and to a certain extent, very aggressive. But I guess what I was trying to say is that many of those “expansive” Chinese dynasties were mostly busy keeping “the barbarians” at bay and their military strategies for the most part were defense-oriented. I see those military garrisons in Manchuria, Mongolia, western China and Xinjiang product of a pre-emptive approach to keep those “barbarians” in check so that they would not cause more problems and wreck havoc in China Proper. Such approach was very different from the colonial western or imperial Japanese approach which primarily sought to conquer and colonize.
History might be a good indicator of future behavior but it doesn’t guarantee anything. Nobody here has a crystal ball. Nobody knows whether a powerful China will be aggressive (actually I think “aggressive” needs to be better defined here), but again that goes for pretty much anybody, any country.
Jeremiah, thanks for sharing your thought. And thanks stuart for letting me hijack this thread.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:20 am
“…your angle of seeing things in China is so skewed that you can’t see things more objectively.”
Naturally, I disagree. True objectivity (if such a thing exists) is pretty hard to come by.
Imagine that we all find ourselves on a continuum, with the unquestioning CCP apologist at the one end of the spectrum and the unswerving demonising China basher at the other. Clearly there is a large area of middle ground where most people find themselves.
At the moment I would say that I’m just right of centre, whereas you are a few steps to the left. Jeremiah, in my humble opinion, is somewhere between the two of us.
“And thanks stuart for letting me hijack this thread.”
However much we disagree, you’re welcome – I need all the visitors I can get.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:29 am
“Not to stick my foot into this fight too far …”
Anytime, Jeremiah.
“On a different note, Stuart, I might ask if labeling the burning of Yuanmingyuan as “Over-exuberance” was an attempt at hyperbole?”
It was an attempt at humorous understatement rather than the trivialising an outrage. In retrospect perhaps it was a tad inappropriate.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:36 am
“actually I think “aggressive” needs to be better defined here”
I believe China is already very aggressive in its pursuit of both raw materials (e.g. Africa) and territory (disputed borderlands, islands, Taiwan). Soft power shouldn’t be mistaken for a harmless approach to international relations.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
By your definition stuart, even South Korea is pretty aggressive (in terms of securing oil supplies). I’d argue that countries today, especially the so-called “powers” are all more or less aggressive going by your definition.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Jeremiah,
Since you closed the thread about China invading Vietnam, I am hijacking stuart’s thread to respond to your latest comment here. I hope stuart doesn’t mind:
First I agree that “the act of naming an event is not a neutral process”. But it is not the issue here. The real issue is regarding the meaning of the word “qinlue”: It is not that the Chinese shamelessly whitewashed this part of the history to make it less of a “qinlue” even though they know it was by all means a “qinlue”; it is really that what happened (at least what I knew that happened) did not fit the criteria usually associated with the word “qinlue”. Not just because it was the Chinese who launched the invasion therefore it is not considered “qinlue”, not at all, it is really what the PLA did in Vietnam did not amount to what we know as “qinlue”. You see, there is a set of explicit and perhaps implicit criteria regarding the behaviors and intentions that are associated with “qinlue” (as I have mentioned numerous times in your thread), the Chinese invasion of Vietnam or the US invasion of Nazi Germany, even the US invasion of Iraq simply doesn’t fit the criteria of “qinlue” to a Chinese person.
I understand the Vietnamese might have a totally different view about China’s invasion and that’s fine, but I thought we were discussing the reluctance of some CHINESE to admit that China has ever invaded anyone, right? So it does matter what “qinlue” means to the Chinese. After all, if they are thinking about “qinlue” and you are talking about “invasion”, two words with different meanings and implications, of course you will be getting different results.
I hope I have made myself clear.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:36 am
“I’d argue that countries today, especially the so-called “powers” are all more or less aggressive going by your definition.”
Agreed, and China is a global power that is not looking to buck the trend, but rather find a different way of marketing their aggression (while maintaining deniability, of course).
February 21st, 2009 at 12:40 am
“I hope stuart doesn’t mind:”
Not at all. In fact, I consider the discussion to be ‘on topic’ insofar as the Chinese invasion of Vietnam was clearly an act of retribution.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:07 am
“Agreed, and China is a global power that is not looking to buck the trend, but rather find a different way of marketing their aggression (while maintaining deniability, of course).”
First, China is not a global power, it is a regional power at best. Secondly, what “trend”? And how is China acting differently from other powers? Come on, all powers are seeking to advance and maximize their interests, they are all the same.
If China is indeed different, I’d say “what is so bad about it?” The world is a diverse place, there is more than just one way (the western way) of doing things.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 am
“The world is a diverse place, there is more than just one way (the western way) of doing things.”
True. But in two decades time there’s a chance it’ll be a case of ‘better the devil you know’. A different way of extending global influence isn’t necessarily an improvement. Thus far China exhibits, for example, little sign of placing humanitarian issues before self interest.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
IMO, that’s because (1) China has no tradition of interference and (2) China is a developing country it has enough problems of its own to worry about, it does not have the luxury to worry about things like human rights in other countries.