Some thoughts after attending an online seminar today. The topic? China. I guess that is what people are talking about nowadays (other than COVID-19 and racism in the United States).
Anyway, this is a jumbled collection of thoughts about different issues mentioned during the seminar ("Debunking China’s New Normal: A Year After the Reed Bank Incident"), so please forgive me if the blog post doesn't flow coherently.
It is very obvious that China has been taking a more aggressive stance on the international stage. We see this very clearly in the South China Sea, and also in its rollout of the Belt and Road Initiative as well as recent criticism of the United States in COVID-19 and racism. Yet such an aggressive stance... is it a miscalculation on China about its current political power? Or is it a calculated move aimed precisely at provoking U.S. response? How can this even be a possible alternative? Well, increased presence equates to higher spending, something which takes away government funds that can be better used for things like building social and economic infrastructure for long-term growth. It also exposes the possibility that the United States may take a harder stance against China which goes against the principle of being open and inclusive. This increase in U.S. hard power response may end up undermining U.S. soft power.
Western media's coverage of anti-Beijing sentiments have shaped our views. We actually think that there are many in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan who dislike Beijing. Yes, it is true that such people exist. But we also need to ask ourselves, what is the percentage of the Chinese population (PRC, HK, ROC) that actually think the CCP is wrong? That want a more democratic government for the Chinese mainland? And are willing to try and do something about it? After all, talk is cheap; there will not be any real change unless people are willing to make it happen. At the end of the day, we need to ask ourselves if media coverage is selective, and therefore cannot be taken as representative of the sentiments of the large Chinese population.
And if anti-CCP or anti-Beijing sentiments are taken as a sign that the CCP does not enjoy popular support and can thus be challenged, the very same can be said of the United States. Look at the protests there. They are against the U.S. government's policy, but does it mean the 50 states are going to secede from the federal government tomorrow? And going back to selective media coverage, the U.S. media initially gave wide coverage to violent protests in the United States, which did not truly reflect the fact that most protests are peaceful. Yet the initial bias allowed right-wingers to shift the narrative away from the racist treatment of African Americans and police violence. The media was called out and has since given more focus on the peaceful aspect of the protests. I think we need to guard against selective coverage of the democratic movement in China too.
In the rivalry between China and the United States, the one who comes out top will be the one who can win hearts. It will need to win the hearts of the international community. The United States looks like it has a head start, since many developed countries agree with U.S. principles regarding the international system. However, we must also remember that U.S. intervention in the past has resulted in many countries that resent the United States, and these countries can easily become friends of China, especially if China dangles a carrot or two.
The United States has always been the leading advocate for freedom of navigation. And the legal basis for this freedom is UNCLOS. Yet the United States has not ratified UNCLOS, although it continues to observe UNCLOS almost in its entirety. This selective adherence to UNCLOS, however, leaves a hole for exploitation by China, who can always selectively adhere to other international systems by citing the U.S. example. Personally, I really hope the United States will ratify UNCLOS, because any day UNCLOS is not ratified by the United States is another day that China can exploit this "hypocrite" narrative.
Regarding the territorial disputes in the South China Sea, Taiwan may not be the best partner to bring into the picture, since the current nine-dotted line has its roots in the KMT days. It is the ROC that declared the Paracel and Spratly Islands as being part of China, and Taiwan has reaffirmed that stance in the past. So claimant countries looking to Taiwan for help in this issue may not end up with their intended results.
Just some random thoughts. I will see if I can better organize them into something more coherent for a proper article.
No comments:
Post a Comment