America’s Export to China: Arrogance
It is always amazing to me how much Chinese people admire America in a begrudging way. For all of the talk of American neo-imperialism, interference in other countries’ “internal” affairs and cultural hegemony, many countries still try to emulate the US. And there are few places where that is more apparent than in China.
At a time when most of the world is moving toward small, fuel-efficient cars, China is loading up on huge Buicks and SUVs. Aside from the paucity of people under 70 buying Buicks in America, this sounds exactly like the mentality of people in the US (at least before four dollars-a-gallon gasoline). The attitude is I can afford a huge car, so I should have one.
Similarly, the US has long been criticized with propping up bad governments in the pursuit of natural resources and other monetary considerations. See pre-1979 Iran, current Saudi Arabia and during the Cold War, South Africa. So quickly the Chinese have learned! Ignoring North Korea, where there is a stronger argument from China’s perspective for promoting stability, look at places like Sudan and more recently Zimbabwe for examples of China taking the most arrogant aspects of American diplomacy as their own.
Just like America before it, China seems to think that power automatically confers moral authority. In reality, the opposite is true: as power grows, it takes greater restraint to take the correct moral actions. When a person or country is weak, it is easy to make the correct “moral” decision because others are imposing consequences. For example, South Africa ultimately gave up its Apartheid system, but only when it was in a position of weakness. When you go into an electronics store you don’t steal a television, partially because there will be repercussions.
Moral questions become more difficult as power becomes greater. If South Africa had been a superpower they surely never would have given up their racist political system. If someone gives you a television that is stolen, but you know that nobody will find out, it becomes more difficult to take the moral high ground and turn it down.
China has moved from a poor, isolated country and is nearing the realm of international superpower. Yet it seems to be following the bad example that America has set. It appears to be content muddling along in self-interest policies. Selling weapons to a government in Zimbabwe that has lost an election but is determined to keep power through brutal force? It is no moral problem because not selling them would be “meddling in the internal affairs” of another. Never mind that arming a leader that was just voted out is meddling in internal affairs. With its new found power, China, much like America, does not need to burden itself with such moral dilemmas.
Yet there is a fundamental logical difference between American arrogance and Chinese arrogance when it comes to foreign policy (although arguably there is no moral distance). In most instances, but not all, America’s arrogant foreign policies are grounded in ethical ideology. For example, as stupid and wrongheaded as the decision to go to war in Iraq was, in theory it based on the idea of making the Middle East safer, removing a war criminal and spreading democracy. Granted it was one of the dumbest decisions in modern foreign policy history, but it was theoretical taken in the interest of the Iraqi people. The Vietnam war had a similar, though also stupid rationale.
In contrast, there is virtually no moral argument for arming Zimbabwe or the Sudanese governments. These are two vile leaderships engaging in brutality against their own peoples, and genocide in the latter case. With regard to Sudan, the impetus seems to be money and resources–things for which the US also has an affinity.
Regardless of the impetuses for the arrogant Chinese foreign policies, they reek of what Beijing has long criticized America for: arrogance. It is much more difficult to suppress arrogance once you have power. China is beginning to learn this.
Share This
theotherrichard responds:
Posted: May 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm →
Another great piece Josh.
I have been arguing a similar line regarding the recent swell of Chinese nationalism. When a country is weak and vulnerable, nationalism, among other things can (not will) bind it together to ward off foes or perils. When a country is weak it is much easier for nationalism and patriotism to be positive forces. As a country becomes powerful there is a shift. Chinese nationalism threatens now to become ugly. While Chinese people may feel week and remember recent and not so recent history of vulnerability and oppression, for the rest of the world - that is beginning to feel the weight of Chinese power - this looks a little threatening. A China that reacts with a uniform call to defend itself against an attack that is seen as a mere slight in the rest of the world will be received with trepidation.
stoogie responds:
Posted: May 2nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm →
America’s arrogant foreign policies are grounded in ethical ideology. ?
Are you on drugs ????!!!!
or may be it is a case of being “too simple, sometimes naive ” ?
Janus responds:
Posted: May 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm →
stoogie, America’s foreign policies are much more defensible than China’s.
cf: America’s South Korea vs. China’s North Korea
hehe responds:
Posted: May 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 pm →
“America’s Export to China: Arrogance”. It seems that you are referring to yourself.
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: May 4th, 2008 at 6:56 am →
China also uses the “two wrongs make a right” argument to justify doing everything bad that Europe, the USSR and the US did without any of the good aspects. China couldn’t lift a finger to help the Indonesian flood victims in its own neighborhood and promised only a few million in aid but can send hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fighter bombers and tanks to Sudan and millions of dollars worth of weapons to Zimbabwe.
Even Businessweek.com acknowledges how bad bad China really is.
http://tinyurl.com/6k6ft4
jen responds:
Posted: May 4th, 2008 at 9:03 am →
One of the major problems I see with China sending arms to Zimbabwe (other than the obvious moral issues you raise) is that this does *not* merely affect Zimbabwe. Why have so many countries not allowed the ship to be unloaded? Because Mugabe’s actions have led to thousands of refugees fleeing Zimbabwe into neighboring countries. Therefore this is not just Zimbabwe’s “internal affair,” as China likes to argue. They’ve overstepped their “sovereignty first” ideology on this one and are left wondering why so many African countries were not letting them unload the ship.
cathy responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 1:25 am →
US foreign interest is base on self interest-using ethical ideology as a cover. Invading Iraq is for spreading democracy? Are you that naive? Invading Iraq is for easier access to the oil, if Iraq had no oil, the US would never have cared about going there. China is bad, so is the US, so don’t try to say one is more just than the others, they are all about politics, and how to control resources. US is feeling sour now because they have weak dollars, and they feel China is taking the resources that were rightfully theirs-US had been the biggest polluter in the world, considering the population, US is consuming more per person, creating more waste, everyone wants a house with a green lawn, a 2 car garage. So it’s not a level ground to compare the average Chinese vs average American.
cathy responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 1:45 am →
People compare China with the current developed countries in the world, when in essence, China is equal to the level of America in the late 1800’s. In terms of economics, workers rights, human rights, need for resources, internal corruptions, entreprenership, China is not on the same level ground as western Europe and the US. To keep comparing them in a way that’s through the eye of Western Europeans, Northern Americans, and modern Japanese, is not exactly fair to the Chinese peasants who are beginning to leave rural villagers life into industrial lifestyle, and the CCP governing mentality is not modern, look at how they handle the Jack Cafferty case, the guy is small potato in the US, and the CCP gave so much importance to a little guy, just to show the country leaders have not enough confidence yet. China is not the same as the western world, on many levels, so it’s not fair to criticize, although the criticism I think would help China to modernize.
cathy responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 1:51 am →
Even Taiwan went through many years to become a true democracy, they imprisoned writers and critics who criticize the Guomingdon, that happened into the 70’s. The only places where Chinese could enjoy freedom of speech and human rights is Hong Kong and Singapore, although HK govt is a little chicken from time to time, afraid of offending the big boss(turned away 4 people on the black list in recent Olympic torch run, sent them right back to the west). Singapore had to use strict monitoring system to get the country into the way it is now, but Singapore is a small place.
cathy responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 2:00 am →
Josh-When the US average citizens were buying and driving the big utility cars, no one criticize its people, why do the Chinese get criticism? You are very arrogant in your attitude, the US up to last year had been buying and driving the big cars, yet they don’t get criticized by the rest of the world, yet when China does it, they get labeled and pointed at, if the west want to get a piece of the golden egg in terms of business opportunities, work with China car manufactures in coming up with big cars that are fuel efficient, or even run by electric or solar, stop sounding so sour about China becoming big, do something constructive to help China be more environmentally friendly-there are tons of business opportunities in that area.
cathy responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 2:08 am →
The US use ethical ideology as the cover for their policy of self interest, it’s like a slogan they pull up for conveniences, for their middle east policy, especially, but underneath is all about self interest, whatever is best for the interest of the US-we are talking about economic interest and domination interest. The ethical ideology is something the US govt try to preach to the middle america and the rural america, big cities in the west and east coast, people know right away what the US govt try to do whenever they pull up the excuse of fighting for democracy. I know no one who believe in those words anymore.
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 7:29 am →
Bad China always has a ton of excuses for this and that but no follow through on any pledges to do anything better.
Hopi responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 7:52 am →
Josh, you are good at describing the Chinese’s shortcomings but you don’t have any empathy for the Chinese — for their struggles or their plight and you do not give the Chinese the benefit of the doubt whereas you give yourself plenty.
I was like you at one point. But I learned to have empathy and to understand people and their point of view. Because of that, instead of preaching from my high horse, I have been working diligently to spread democracy (in the tradition of Mill, Rousseau, Locke, etc. and not the NeoCon’s brand of democracy) in China in a way that’s effective and that will actually make a difference.
cathy responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 12:45 pm →
The west is as morally corrupted, look at New Orleans, to this day, it’s still remained as a dump, it’s not cleaned up, the US govt don’t care about it very much because majority of the people economic levels are not like folks who live in LA, Beverly Hills, imagined something like that happened in LA, the govt would have had a massive clean up done in efficient time. The Chinese have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, they have worked damn hard to get here, let them enjoy the cars and the high rise, it’s all part of the process of becoming a developed country, all the excess, entire western Europe and North America had went through it, even Japan, so China has to learn the hard way as the rest of the developed countries did. The west, stop bitching, start working with China in creating fuel efficient big cars and renewable energy, there aren’t that many options.
cathy responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 1:15 pm →
The people in Africa are much stronger voice in forcing Chinese govt to change their policy, it’s much more powerful and convincing seeing local Africans putting up signs to try to stop the ship of shame from docking on their shore, than hearing western govt denouncing the CCP. If people in mainland China saw the Africans protest(which I doubt they have since CCP wouldn’t want people to see this part), they would start having more empathy and perhaps start writing more about this in the papers and blogs, and persuade the CCP to change their policy. The African nations need to stand together to denounce the CCP in their foreign policy, it’s much more affective that they do this than the western nations.
stuart responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 6:30 pm →
It’s very true that the confident, nationalistic swagger of today’s China displays a little more of its arrogant underbelly as the country’s global influence increases.
The worry has to be that, for a regime lacking checks and balances and press freedom, there will be no dissenting voices when China decides it’s time to flex its muscles to settle territorial disputes and old scores.
Peaceful rise? I hope so, but I doubt it.
cathy responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 11:27 pm →
The underbelly is not arrogant alone, there’s genuine national pride, there’s a sense of insecurity and sense of hurt, it’s all brought on by what they perceived as deliberate one sided reporting by the western news media.
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: May 8th, 2008 at 6:09 am →
The underbelly is the ugly, naive childishness of the Chinese population, coddled, insulated and beaten into submission by bad China’s bad government.