China Law Blog

James Na is one of the smartest, most insightful columnists writing on Asia.  On top of this, he is a great guy and I consider him a friend.  I am in awe of his knowledge of military issues and of Korea. His writings on North Korea are absolutely top notch.  Our views on Seattle sushi restaurants almost always jibed (James has since left Seattle to return to the East Coast), but, when it comes to China, we always seem to disagree.  In a previous post, James astutely attributed our disagreements on China to our varying perspectives:

These guys [China Law Blog] are much more bullish on China than I am.  But then again, those who engage primarily in civil/business side of China tend to be so while those who deal in security or human rights issues tend to be more cautious (I count myself in the latter category).

Today, I disagree not with James' opinions on China, but with his facts. For today, James seems to have fallen prey to the China is "all bad and on the verge of imminent implosion school of thought," and he has done so not because the facts demand it, but because politics do.  Bad James.  Bad. 

In a recent post on his Korea Liberator Blog, entitled, "China Hype, Part 4," James cites favorably to an overly simplistic and downright unfair article on China written by Richard Halloran and entitled, "Conventional Wisdom Overlooks China's Troubles"  Near as I can tell, Halloran is a journalist with much more of a focus on the military than on China. James uses Halloran's article to push for the United States getting tougher on China. 

I am an attorney and a businessperson, not a political scientist or a military strategist, so I will confine my criticisms to the portrayal of China, while steering clear of the issues raised regarding United States foreign relations and military policy with respect to China. 

Halloran's article claims that when China's President Hu Jintao meets with President George Bush this Thursday, "he will have behind him a troubled and vulnerable nation that will surely put him in a weakened negotiating posture with the Americans."  Halloran posits that the "conventional wisdom on China today holds that it has generated an economic miracle that is propelling Beijing into the top ranks of the global arena. While there is much truth in that image, it overlooks widespread political unrest, vast unemployment and under-employment, and a disruptive disparity in the sharing of economic progress." 

It is unfair for Halloran to refer to China's economic miracle as an "image."  The buildings constantly going up in China's cities are -- standing alone -- enough to refute that accusation.  I do not dispute that there is "political unrest" in China nor that it is on the rise, but it is wrong to automatically conclude these protests mean Chinese populace is getting angrier with its government when they can just as likely be due to an increased belief in the efficacy of protests and a decreased fear of repercussions.  I also agree unemployment and underemployment in China is a huge problem, but I find it unfair for Halloran to ignore that the quality of jobs and the number of jobs in China is growing rapidly every year.  China does have a vast disparity of wealth and that is and will continue to be a problem, but since this is due more to the rapid increases in the wealth of Chinese urbanites than to a decrease in wealth among those in the countryside, this disparity is at least as much an argument for China's strength as for its weakness.

Mr. Halloran talks about how wealth disparity is disruptive, but he ignores that the general view in China these days is one of optimism. It is no accident that a recent international survey found that the Chinese view capitalism more favorably than those of any other country.  They view it favorably because (at least so far) it has done so well for them.  People who believe they are on an ascendancy tend not to be disruptive. 

Halloran also claims "China's reliance on exports to drive its economic engine has left it exposed to external pressures, notably from the United States. Foreign investment has faltered."  Halloran has his facts wrong here.  Foreign investment (FDI) in China for the first quarter of 2006 is actually up 6.4% from last year.   On top of this, China's GDP is rising faster this year than expected.  There has been no faltering. 

Halloran also cites to China's "looming water shortages that affect not only agriculture but the economy and national security, inadequate public health and safety programs, and pollution caused by dumping industrial waste, accidental spills, and harmful smoke billowing from factories everywhere."  China has terrible environmental problems and regions with water shortages and its citizens are unhappy about this, sometimes to the point of rioting.  (I blogged on a violent, environmentally induced rampage just this past week, here.)  However, it is unfair -- without more -- to cite China's environmental problems as proof of its weakness when dealing with the United States. 

Halloran triumphantly notes that the U.S. Pacific Command, which is responsible for deterring or countering potential threats from China, summed up its annual economic assessment of the Asia-Pacific region with perhaps an understatement: "China faces great uncertainty."  Should we stop the presses on this one? I mean, is there a developing country that does not face great uncertainty?  Do we need the U.S. Pacific Command to tell us this?  This is not analysis. 

Then, Halloran "reveals" that "China, however, could not find a market anywhere near the size of that in America. Privately and candidly, Chinese scholars acknowledge this."  Privately and candidly?  Is Halloran implying that "Chinese scholars" would be imprisoned in China if they were to state what everyone in China with a decent education must know and can read in the Chinese press every day: that the United States is the biggest market in the world? 

Halloran notes that "Robert Zoellick, U.S. deputy secretary of state, said in September that U.S. business executives who saw China as a land of opportunity in the 1990's now "worry about Chinese competition, rampant piracy, counterfeiting, and currency manipulation."  Halloran's clear implication here is that U.S. business executives no longer see China as a land of opportunity and that is simply not true.  I talk China with business executives nearly ever day and though they do indeed "worry about "Chinese competition, rampant piracy, and counterfeiting," they, virtually without exception, view China's opportunities as exceeding its risks.   

Sunday's Seattle Times has an interesting article, entitled, "Two Washingtons, Two Reactions to Hu," that talks about how differently the two Washingtons (the State and the capital city) view China and why this is so: 

Hu will seek to allay fears that China's growth presents an economic and political threat to the United States. Seattle, with two leading U.S. companies that view China as an unrivaled business opportunity, gives him the perfect setting for that message.

"This Washington [the state] is an alternative vision of what the US-China relationship can be," said David Bachman, a professor and China specialist at the [Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies at the] University of Washington. "Here we have a state establishment that is almost 100 percent behind encouraging engagement, and a perception that things are moving well on both sides."

In D.C., by contrast, "the whole view is the relationship is negative," Bachman said.

Bottom Line:  U.S. politicians and political and military writers are bound to view China differently than those of us who do business there, and I have no beef with that. But it is not fair for political writers to twist the facts on the ground in China so as to advance a particular political agenda.  We need a United States' policy towards China based on reality, not on manipulations.