Randall Peerenboom's China Modernizes
A Guest Post by Mark Anthony Jones
The other day, Mark Anthony Jones (formerly of China, now returned to Australia), mentioned in a comment that he would like me to read Randall Peerenboom's book, China Modernizes. My response was that I would love to read the book, but since I am already way behind in my promises to read and review books (yes, Janet, I still plan to read and review China CEO and since I have actually read China Shakes the World, I do plan to review that some day also), would he review it as a guest. Mark graciously agreed and what follows is Mark's review.
First though, by way of brief background, the writer of China Modernizes, Randall Peerenboom, is a Professor of Law at the University of California Los Angeles and is the Director of China programs for the Oxford Foundation of Law, Justice and Society. He has a Ph.D. in Philosophy and an M.A. in Religious Studies, as well as a J.D. from Columbia Law School. He also serves as an expert witness on Chinese legal issues, and is a consultant to both the Ford Foundation and the Asian Development Bank on legal reforms and the rule of law in China. His book, China Modernizes, was published by Oxford University Press in January of this year.
Now on to Mark's review: There are precious few good books on present day China’s governance and society. Most tend to be either overly optimistic or overly pessimistic.
Two sharply opposing images of China seem to prevail in the Western media, reflected also on the pages of many English language China-related blogs and discussion forums.
The Middle Kingdom is often depicted as a rising superpower set to achieve global economic hegemony, some even say by as early as 2020. According to this view, China provides a model for other developing countries, and with its high growth rates, is the envy of the post-industrial world. In 2004 the Pew Research Centre surveyed the popular attitudes of people towards China in sixteen countries, and their findings showed China is much more popular around the world than the United States, and is roughly as popular as France, Germany and Japan. Even in the UK, America’s closest ally, 65 percent of those surveyed viewed China favourably, as compared to just 45 percent for the United States. (see Guy Dinmore, “Anti-Americanism gives China the edge in poll”, Financial Times, June 24, 2005)
The opposing view, easily found on the shelves of Walmart and common among many (if not most) English language China-related blog sites, sees China as a brutal authoritarian state that violently suppresses its citizens, and that far from being self-confident and tolerant, is instead defensive and nationalistic. Its environmental problems are made out to be so severe that the country’s days of stability are numbered and its impoverished rural population is constantly rising up in protest against corruption and land thefts.
I have always challenged both of these extremes, and roughly nine months ago I wrote a piece for my blog, titled “Some Thoughts on the Nature of China’s Governance and Society,”where I sought to present a fairer, more balanced assessment. Though I framed my arguments using abstractions derived from the Frankfurt School of Marxism, my study was nevertheless empirically based and dialectical.
Though I received many comments in response to my text, I am nevertheless well aware I am generally quite alienated from the narrow world of the English language China-related blogosphere. Most of those who frequent this particular cyberspace are quick to dismiss me as a “CCP apologist,” which has always puzzled me, since I am quite clearly not of this mold. I am often quite critical of the CCP and my conclusions on the nature of China’s present day governance and society are nuanced, and, as in my piece “Shenzhen Kitsch,” sometimes overtly critical.
Blogs however, necessarily reflect the biases of their creators, who themselves usually look to the popular media for guidance in forming their world views. I think it better to rely on academic sources as they are more likely to present balanced, fairer assessments.
There are, however, precious few academic books that examine present day China’s governance and society, which is why I ended up producing my own text on the topic for my blog. There are plenty of excellent academic studies on China to dealing with specific social phenomena, but bringing them together to create a broader assessment seems to have been attempted by very few.
So I was thrilled to come across Randall Peerenboom’s new book, China Modernizes, because it addresses the same questions as in my post on China governance and society and his conclusions very closely mirror my own -- though he reaches his conclusions using different sources.
Peerenboom builds his book around the four pillars of modernity: economics, human rights, the rule of law and democratisation, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Peerenboom looks favourably on the CCP's economic management of China and its pragmatic and successful approach to reforms. While embracing market reforms, China resisted the attempts of international financial institutions and foreign experts to engage in shock therapy, pursuing instead a more gradual pace of reform. “Rather than blindly following the advice of the IMF or the World Bank,” writes Peerenboom, “the government has taken care to adapt basic economic principles to China’s current circumstances . . . . contrary to neoliberal prescriptions, the state has actively intervened in the Chinese economy and played a key role in setting economic policy, establishing government institutions, regulating foreign investment, and mitigating the adverse effects of globalisation on domestic constituencies.”
Like the vast majority of Chinese mainlanders, Peerenboom praises China’s political leadership for pursuing economic reforms before democratisation, which is also what most other East Asian states like South Korea did, and for that matter America and Western European countries too. Most of Peerenboom’s second chapter in fact, is spent on demonstrating the wisdom of this approach, which he does convincingly by drawing on numerous broader empirical studies. Surprisingly, he does not’t mention Henry Rowen’s contribution to this debate. Rowen was one of the first to argue that "growing wealth is accompanied by increased education, the building of business and government institutions with some autonomy, and the formation of attitudes that enable democratic governments to survive when they have a chance at power.”
“If China's economic growth continues at today's rates,” argued Rowen, “it will reach mean incomes of $7,000 to $8,000 by 2015. Spain, Portugal, Chile and Argentina, in addition to Taiwan and South Korea, all made the transition to democracy while they were within this income range."
Like Rowen, Peerenboom links performance on human rights standards, including measures of civil and political rights, to a country’s level of wealth, by drawing heavily on the World Bank Good Governance Indicators as empirical evidence to support his claims.
Indeed, one of the strengths of this book is that it is does rely heavily on empirical studies to demonstrate how China performs relative to other countries. The book demonstrates convincingly that rule of law, good governance and virtually all rights including civil and political rights are highly correlated with wealth. “Comparing China to much wealthier countries,” says Peerenboom, “leads to the unsurprising conclusion that China has more problems: there are more deviations from the rule of law, government institutions that are weaker, less efficient and more corrupt; and citizens enjoy fewer freedoms while living shorter and more impoverished lives.”
But what is more revealing, and as Peerenboom very rightly stresses, is how well a country does compared to the average country in its income class. When we examine the empirical evidence this way, we see China meets or exceeds expectations on most measures.
In terms of economic growth, China’s performance has been “phenomenal”, lifting roughly 250 million of its people out of poverty. “The legal system has played a greater role in economic growth in China than often suggested by those who belittle the importance of rule of law for development,” says Peerenboom, and “China has made significant progress in a short time in improving the legal system, having essentially begun from scratch in 1978.” China’s legal system, notes Peerenboom, “now outperforms the average in it income class on the World Bank’s rule of law index.”
China also “outperforms the average country in its income class on most major indicators of human rights and well-being.”
According to Peerenboom, “China’s performance across a range of variables from economic performance to elimination of poverty to the establishment of a functional legal system and government institutions is on a whole demonstrably superior to the performance of most African, Middle Eastern and Latin American countries.” China, argues Peerenboom, is following the East Asia Model used by Singapore, South Korea and Japan, and is performing better than these countries did when they were still at China’s current income level.
After spending much time demonstrating empirically developments in the rule of law in China, Peerenboom investigates why China is among only a handful of countries frequently targeted for systematic government human rights violations by the wealthy West in the UN, even though it does so well relative to its level of development on most measures of human rights and well-being. He spends three and a half pages on India alone, demonstrating how its respect for human rights is far worse than China’s, though, unlike China, it is never censured before the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Peerenboom sees this double standard as the product of four things: first, a longstanding bias among Western human rights activists and governments that favour liberal democratic societies and do not want to see a non-liberal nondemocratic regime succeed: “UN resolutions for systematic government violations of human rights have overwhelmingly been meted out against a handful of nondemocratic developing countries with poor civil and political rights records, even though some of them may do better on other human rights measures and indicators of well-being, including physical integrity violations.”
Another factor explaining this double standard is that much of the reporting on China by the general media and human rights monitors tends to focus on particular horrific cases of human rights violations – which is what I have been arguing now for a long time (see my piece, “Regimes of Truth -- How Westerners imagine China”). As Peerenboom very rightly points out, “the emphasis on individual cases, especially heart-wrenching cases that are not representative of the system as a whole, creates a misleading impression of how serious the problems are and a distorted image abroad.” The bias in favour of liberal democratic states mentioned earlier above is also reflected in Western media reports on China. Much of the reporting, as Peerenboom notes, “continues to be framed by the narrative of ‘good dissidents’ battling the ‘oppressive authoritarian state’ in a noble quest for democracy and social justice. . . .”
But as Peerenboom empirically demonstrates, not all democracies guarantee and protect human rights, just as not all non-democracies seriously violate and neglect human rights.
Peerenboom again:
The US State Department reports for China invariably start with a description of the nature of the political regime, as if that were the most significant determinant for rights in the country. To be sure, the reports only discuss civil and political rights, in itself a clear indicator of bias. The 2004 report for China begins: ‘The People’s Republic of China . . . is an authoritarian state in which. . . . the Chinese Communist Party . . . . is the paramount source of power.’ Imagine it began instead: ‘Human rights and other indicators of well-being across the board are highly correlated with wealth. China outperforms the average country in its lower-middle income category on every major indicator except civil and political rights (as is generally true for other East Asian countries).
As I argued in my post, “Some Thoughts on the Nature of China’s Governance and Society," a fairer assessment requires examining empirically verifiable evidence, rather than simply relying on qualitative evidence.
The third reason for Western double standards towards China comes from those who want to contain China’s development and influence. Criticising China’s human rights record “deprives it of legitimacy and ‘soft power,’ thus making it more difficult for China to persuade others to join it in pursuing policies that serve China’s interests.” Despite its various diplomatic successes, notes Peerenboom, “the demonisation of China has indeed impeded China’s international influence to some extent.”
The fourth cause of the double standard is the over-critical attitude many foreigners have towards China's system of governance, stemming largely from a blind faith in the legacies of the eighteenth-century European Enlightenment, which of course made valuable contributions to our modern ideas about democracy, human rights, religious tolerance, and the rational pursuit of truth.
There is so much more to be gained from this important new book than what I have outlined here. There is an entire chapter on democracy, a chapter on the rule of law, and a chapter on human rights, all carefully researched and empirically grounded. “China’s performance to date,” Peerenboom concludes, “has exceeded expectations, and there are reasons to be optimistic about the future. It is a large country, with considerable room for further growth. As rule of law and good governance are highly correlated with wealth, there is reason to expect that China's legal system and government institutions will continue to improve as China becomes richer . . . . Chinese leaders have no choice but to continue with economic, legal and political reforms” and “China need only look at its more successful neighbours to get a general sense of the way forward.”
Rather than demonising China as a strange authoritarian anomaly, Peerenboom succeeds in demonstrating China is simply following the normative patterns of its East Asian neighbours in terms of economic development, respect for human rights, the rule of law, and democratisation.
Comments
"before democratisation, which is also what most other East Asian states like South Korea did, and for that matter America and Western European countries too"
Let's see, the Magna Carta took place well before "free market capitalism" was even a phrase, the House of Commons was an elected body long before the English economy was even a shadow of what it is today. The French Revolution was driven by the excesses and abuses by a small upper class on the vast, hungry, dirty lower class. The US was established as a Greco-Roman style democracy and evolved from that.
", China’s performance has been “phenomenal”, lifting roughly 250 million of its people out of poverty."
"respect for human rights, the rule of law, and democratisation."
And yet this site has recently had so many posts in which the general consensus is that China is virulently racist, xenophobic and ultra-nationalistic and that the "average Zhou" couldn't get a fair day in court unless God saton the bench.
All of these panda-huggers conveniently forget about the 800-900 million people who were pushed down. Perhaps these "sinologists" ought to demonstrate their mandarin fluency at a construction site next time they are in China instead of enjoying banquets and KTV girls.
250 million sounds impressive until you consider it is less than 10% of the population and that took 30 years.
India is a human rights abuser? Their SEZ plans are in serious jeopardy because of rural resistance. How many E. Turkmenistans and Tibets does India have under its belt? How many Tiananmen square and Gulja massacres has India committed?
More panda hugging hogwash from someone who sees China from his 20th story 5 star hotel room.
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan | April 5, 2007 9:58 AM
nanheyangrouchuan. For your reference, here is a video about indian police firing at peaceful farmers in nandigram.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-G5NCSqvSM
Posted by: jk | April 5, 2007 11:01 AM
250 million / 1.3 million gives you about 20%
Magna Carta was not important until after the fights between the king and parliament in the 16th century, and that occurred after the commercial revolution of the 16th century. The House of Commons was not effectively elected in anything like a democratic fashion until the Reform Act of 1830. The United States was not a democracy until about 1820 and Andrew Jackson. Property requirements kept the franchise closed, and the original US Constitution wasn't particularly democratic. Parts of Greece were democratic, but Rome never really was.
The idea that China is xenophobic and racist and devoid of rule of law is hardly a "consensus" on this board.
As far as the speed of poverty reduction. 800-900 million people are hardly being pushed down. Everyone is pretty much better off than they were when this experiment began. If you have a realistic plan that would have had China develop more quickly and get 1.3 billion to first world standards in thirty years, I'd like to hear it. Development takes a long time, and China is developing about three times as fast as England or the United States during their industrial revolution.
Also, it makes it easier to have these discussions if you stop with the "ad hominem" attacks. China is big and different people see different things, and it's a bad idea to assume ill-will from people who have different views. I know Professor Peerenboom, and he has been pretty active in rule of law issues in China.
The problem I have with your views is that you correctly point out that China has huge problems, but I don't think that you really have any better solutions. The basic problem is that in order to get China at US levels of wealth, you need to generate tens of trillions of dollars of wealth, and I haven't seen any thing that you've written that suggests that you have any clue how to do that. The people that know how to generate wealth are the bankers, the lawyers, and the MBA's that you seem to have big problems with.
If we don't generate wealth, then to redistribute global wealth fairly will require a massive drop in the standards of living of people in the United States and Europe. That is going to be unpleasant.
Part of the reason I'm a "panda hugger" is that I've been to Mexico. If you look at China from the standards of the United States, it looks awful. If you look at China from the standards of a third world nation, then it looks really, really good.
If you are going to bash other people for being corporate drones then you been to be prepared to be bashed for being out of touch with how much poverty there is on this planet and for having unrealistic and impractical expectations for what a third world government can get done, and worse yet, for not having any better alternatives.
Posted by: Joseph Wang | April 5, 2007 12:22 PM
Found this comment from businessweek.com after an article regarding the latest US trade sanactions on China:
"nanheyangrouchuan Apr 4, 2007 11:29 PM GMT Now it's time for full tariffs on Chinese products: 29.5%! Production will be shifted to other countries and the U.S. will have a broader outsourcing base. Other countries win; the U.S. wins. Bad China is just bad."
Is this the same "nanheyangrouchuan" on the CLB?
Here is the link to the BW article:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2007/gb20070404_113885.htm
Posted by: greg | April 5, 2007 12:36 PM
Thanks for the review and summary, MAJ. Haven't read this book yet. The author spends three and half pages focusing on India's human rights violations and concludes that India's human rights record is "far worse" than China's. That's something I'm interested in knowing more about. My impression is that corruption is a serious problem in India, and it's probably on par with China. You may often hear train crashes or train related disasters in Bombay or Mumbai. But that hardly constitutes human rights in strict sense.
One thing about the book, It seems to me that the key argument of Peerenboom is that the level of civility, so to speak, of social governance is closely related to gross level of wealth. I'm not sure if this can go unchallenged. Along this line, could someone argue that a poor person would be a bad person?
It certainly doesn't hold true empirically.
Well, under Peerenboom's theory, Mr. Chuan is Category III? ;) Chuan is pretty ubiquitous around the China Blogsphere. It seems that he's gotten a pet China minority (Tibet or Xingjiang) issue. These are all heavy duty stuff.
Posted by: Sepa | April 5, 2007 2:39 PM
Sepa, the reason why you and numerous others are surprised by Peerenboom's remarks about India merely goes to prove his point - that China is treated unfairly, and that it is singled out for particularly harsh criticism by both political states and by the Western media, and for all of the reasons he lists.
The fact is, India shares with China a Political Terror Scale rating of 4, though Peerenboom argues that unlike India, China doesn't deserve to be ranked this poorly.
Peerenboom draws not only from his own knowledge about India's human rights record, but also from the US State Department's 2004 Report of India, He cites the report extensively to demonstrate that the US government is well aware of the seriousness of the human rights situation in India - yet it has faled to sponsor any motions against it - hence the double standard when it comes to their attitude toward China.
Very briefly though, allow me to outline just a few of the problems in India:
* In 2001 and 2002, security forces killed an average of 1,600 militants per killed. Some of those killings occured in "fake encounters" where the security forces summarily executed suspected militants and other civilians offering no resistance. The bodies of many of those killed showed signs of serious torture and bore multiple bullet wounds.
* Estimates of unexplained disappearances in Kashmir and Jammu alone since 1990 range from 4,000 to 8,000, according to NGOs. Military and paramilitary troops throughout India also engage in abduction, torture, rape and arbitrary detention.
* Death in custody is commonfor both suspected criminals and militants, and according to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, torture is "systematically" used. Authorities in India, according to the report, routinely torture detainees in order to extort from them money. Rape in custody is also common.
* India's legal system is plagues by corruption and a serious lack of resources, and an enormous 75 percent of detainees in Indias' prisons are unconvicted, waiting for trial.
* According to the US State Department report, restrictions on the freedom of the press and freedom of speech are severe, and include the use of defamation laws against journalists along with beatings, detentions, and other forms of harrassment.
* The government in India bans books and censors the media and the internet to a greater extent than does China.
* The Indian government restricts academic freedom, most notably by regulating partnerships between Indian and Western universities in line with Hindutva philosophy.
* The Indian government refused a visa to the Secretary General of Amnesty International after it issued a critical report regarding the government's handling of the religious-based violence in Gajurat, and in 202 it refused to allow the UN Special Rapporteurs on Torture and Extrajudicial Killings to enter the country.
* The Indian police routinely refuse to arrest rapists, and the courts fully adjudicate only 10 percent of rape cases, thereby creating a culture of impunity for rapists.
* Dalits or "untouchables" (the lowest caste) make up the majority of bonded labour, face segregation in housing and marriage, and tend to be malnourished and illiterate. Brahmans, by contrast, despite making up only 3.5 percent of the overall population, make up 75 percent of the judiciary and 50 percent of the parliament.
* Tiananmen-style massacres occur throughout India quite frequently - only last month for example, the police gunned down fifteen civilians farmers in Nandigram who were protesting against a government decision to evict them from their land in order to make way for the establishment of an Indonesian-owned petrochemical plant. This story was picked up by the Western media (see The Australian, March 20, 2007 for example).
I could go on....
The point is this: India's human rights record over the past 25 years has been, and continues to be, noticibly worse than China's, and yet the US and its Western allies have never once sponsored a motion to censure India for rights violations, yet they sponsored eleven motions to censure China in the UN between 1990 and 2004 alone.
As far as the correlation between wealth and good governance goes, the empirical evidence to support this is overwhelming. You cannot infer from this though, that individuals would behave badly simply because they are poor. Peerenboom is not talking about individuals, but entire nation states, which require enormous wealth in order to develop and to maintain effective institutions and services - be they in the areas of health, education, the judiciary, etc.
Nanheyangouchuan - if you have a "pet" minority issue, then read my arguments on Tibet, which I think will challenge your views on this. You can find them posted at: www.pbs.org/chinainside
Peerenboom's point about democracy, Nanheyangouchuan, is that liberal parliamentary democracies did not suddenly just appear spontaneously in Western European countries, or in the U.S. or Australia. They developed over many hundreds of years, and the type of system really only began to mature into what we enjoy today after the Second World War - helped along partly by the shift in the balance of class forces that resulted in the development of the welfare state.
Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April 6, 2007
Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones | April 5, 2007 5:44 PM
nanheyangrouchuan --
You are completely missing the point of the review. The point is not that China does not still have a long way to go, but that we should be looking at China in context. Complaining about China having pulled only 250 million people out of poverty in 30 years is to ignore context entirely.
Does one really need to speak Mandarin with Chinese construction workers to know that their jobs are brutal? I don't think so. Does "enjoying banquets and KTV girls" disqualify one from having any validity in commenting on China. You and I both know that you bring this stuff up just as an attempt to shock and to show "inside" knowledge, not to advance any real proposition.
What I find so funny about your attack here is that Mark is an academic, not a businessperson. Again though, you are engaging in irrelevant ad hominem arguments.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 5:46 PM
jk --
I will also note that India also engages in internet censoring.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 5:47 PM
Mr. Wang --
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 5:49 PM
greg --
How many nanheyangrouchuans do you know?
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 5:50 PM
Sepa --
I have not read the book, so I am guessing here, but I am pretty certain Peerenboom would not say poor people are bad people, but rather, he would say the following:
1. Poor countries have weak institutions. Strong insitutions are key to the Rule of Law, Human Rights protections, lack of corruption.
2. Corruption is more likely in a poor country than in a rich country for the simple reason that rich people have more to lose and less to gain by corruption.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 5:54 PM
Nanheyangrouchuan - one more thing! The figure of 250 million people lifted out of poverty over the last 20-25 years is very impressive, by any messure, and it does represent roughly 20 percent of the overall population, as Joseph has pointed out. That's one in every five!
Why not try looking at China's human rights record over the past 25 years through Chinese eyes? If you do, then you will appreciate the big picture as looking pretty impressive: as the latest United Nation's Human Development Brief reports, "China has registered some of the most rapid advances in human development in history, with its Human Development Index ranking increasing 20 percent since 1990." China is now ranked 85 out of 177 countries. "China was the world's fastest growing economy over the past two decades, with per capita incomes rising threefold," says the report, "although growing inequalities have left Guizhou ranking alongside Namibia (ranked 125 on the index) whereas Shanghai is more comparable to Portugal (which ranks 25 on the index - not all that much further behind the U.K and the United States! Norway, incidentally, is ranked Number 1, followed by Australia. The U.S. is currently ranked Number 8. Keep in mind that this ranking takes into account not only the spending power of its citizens, but also per capita literacy and numeracy rates, the quality and accessibility of health care and housing, as well as various other indicators. There is I think, every reason to be generally optimistic about China's future.
Development is always going to be uneven of course - that's a universal phenomenon. So yes, inequality has grown dramatically as a reult of all of this development, but the poor are, generally speaking, still getting richer, albeit, at a much slower rate than are the rich. But can you name one country in the world where this is not the case - both historically, and as ongoing phenomena?
Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April 6, 207
Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones | April 5, 2007 6:04 PM
Dan - I just read your last comment above, and yes, that is EXACTLY Peerenboom's argument - an argument that is supported by the overwhelming weight of available existing empirically-verifiable evidence - all carefully documented by Peerenboom himself throughout the 393 pages that make up this important and very welcome new book.
Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April 6, 2007
Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones | April 5, 2007 6:10 PM
MAJ --
I think the overwhelming point here (and in countless of my previous posts on the environment in China, rule of law in China, IP protection in China, etc.) is that we need to compare China with comparable countries and, surprise, surprise, when we do that, China is comparable. By comparable countries, I mean comparable in terms of wealth, which, like it or not is highly correlative with many other factors we would like to believe exist on their own.
Corruption is one of my favorite examples of this, because the rankings on country corruption nearly always closely track the rankings on wealth. I am also of the view that these rankings give lie to the idea that corruption is somehow genetic or ethnic. Singapore, HK, Taiwan, and China, are all more or less where one would expect them to be in terms of corruption, based on their economic development.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 6:34 PM
MAJ:
If Tibet is such a wonderful place for Tibetans, why is it that so many leave for India or Nepal?
And why does the PLA shoot at them as they flee?
Journalists with PSB permits are still "observed" by the Chinese. You can try to dismiss this as "commie paranoia" but talk to some really old china hands who arrived in the 80s and early 90s.
After a month in CHina they knew by face the person who tailed them aronnd town and their comings and goings were openly recorded by the community representative. There are too many foreigners in China's big business cities for that kind of activity, but Tibet is too sensitive and the foreigners are few enough that this kind of observation is still common. If a foreigner went somewhere or met a Tibetan they weren't supposed to, they would be "informed".
As for India's human rights violations, I"d like to see some web links or publication references to Tiananmen scale massacres in India. Tiananmen is known to the world and Gulja is starting to come out as a Rebya Kadeer is being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (China is vehemtly protesting) for her work to save her people. Where are the Indian equivalents?
MAJ, you may or may not know that India as the same problem with Maoists in its east that Nepal has. And Kashmir? Firstly, thank the Brits, second, its a three way struggle. If it wasn't for water rights, the Kashmir issue would have been settled 20 years ago.
So lets see some links. There are lots of links and quite a few videos of PAP/PSB banditry on behalf of local officials.
BTW, this morning on PBS, the Indian gov't fessed up regarding Nandigram, which was supposed to be a SEZ. But unlike China, that and other SEZs are on hold because of local protests. No PSB beat downs, no garrison of PAP to restore "harmony".
It would be intersting, if possible to compare India's degree of internet censorship with China's. Blogspot has had a tough time with the PSB nannies recently and the BBC is on permanent ban. Even satellite TV broadcasts to 5 star foreign hotels get "the fuzz" from our CCP friends.
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan | April 5, 2007 6:47 PM
You all do realize the inherent danger in taking a Neville Chamberlain stance with a country/ethnic group that considers itself to be the center of the world/guardians of heaven and the rest of us to be barbarians? This same country has fairly modern weapons, nukes, alot of territorial claims on its neighbors, resentment about past unfilled potential and an assumption of its future place in the world.
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan | April 5, 2007 6:56 PM
Thanks MAJ for this wonderful piece, and thanks Dan for running it. GVO had its annual meeting in Delhi last year, and most of us from the East Asia team were shocked at the huge differences between Delhi and Beijing, more than one of us, back in China, joking that we'd come back to the first world. The points MAJ makes about India in comparison to China really do put things in perspective.
So what does that say about foreign correspondents stationed in China? I'd just like to draw attention to one line in one analysis of foreign media coverage of the recent Two Sessions which seems to contradict what Peerenboom argues, "CNN correspondent FlorCruz said, "But compared to free education, medical insurance and inequality of wealth, democracy cannot be said to be the most urgent thing that the common Chinese people want," contradicted in turn by one Chinese writer, who asks "whether these big international media have fallen? Or does Beijing actually have the ability to co-opt them? Do they fail to notice the hundreds of thousands of acts of violent resistance each year? Do they pretend not to see that an undemocratic system creates corruption, wealth disparity and social injustice? Can a CNN reporter not see the connection between free education, medical insurance, wealth disparity and democracy in a country without democracy and individual human rights?"
links: http://zonaeuropa.com/20070323_1.htm
http://zonaeuropa.com/20070404_1.htm
Posted by: feng37 | April 5, 2007 8:05 PM
I'd say on the whole, I'm a dragon slayer more than a panda hugger. I try to read articles like this to balance things out, so to say. For me, I think the reason why it's so easy for me (and possibly for other dragon slayers) to give a knee-jerk reaction to this by saying "CCP apologist!!", etc., is the impression I get from the panda-huggers is that I'm being too harsh on CHina. Why is it that we try to humanize a piece of dirt on a map? China does not have feelings, America does not have feelings, NO country has feelings, thus no country should be free from insult and criticism when it is due. Sure, China has come a long way, but that doesn't change the fact that it still makes mistakes. Any success of any country should NEVER be used to diminish it's failures.
Posted by: Chip | April 5, 2007 8:09 PM
Arghh... Call me pedantic, but there's one little word that keeps popping up in Nanheyangrouchuan's comments that has been bugging me for too long: Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan is an independent country. Has been since the collapse of the Soviet Union.I'm not aware of any significant political problems in the eastern part of Turkmenistan, but I suspect that if such problems exist, their relationship to China is so weak as to be essentially irrelevant to this blog (although I'll leave that to the China Law Bloggers to decide). I believe NHYRC means to be referring to Xinjiang, which Uighur nationalists like to call "East Turkestan". I really have been teaching English far too long, I'm sorry.
Back on topic: Thank you Mr Jones for the review. I don't have any empirical evidence to offer the debate, but my experience of both urban and rural China seems to match Peerenboom's argument. It's good to see there are people out there trying to put China into its proper context.
Posted by: chriswaugh_bj | April 5, 2007 8:13 PM
Dan - exactly. This is what I too have been arguing for years. And it's exactly what Peerenboom argues in his new book too.
Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April 6, 2007
Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones | April 5, 2007 8:45 PM
Dan & MAJ,
Without comparing India and China, I have to admit India's record alone clearly escaped my eyes. Maybe I'm not alone. At least for the general public in the United States, India is geneally viewed as a relatively benign, largest democracy on the earth.
I get the points from both of you regarding correlation between a country's wealth ranking and the desirability of its legal and political system.I guess I'm more willing to say that if a country has a better system, then it gets to build and keep wealth in a more efficient and sound fashion than to say the other way around, i.e. here is the wealth you have, then here is the system you can buy. It somewhat resembles the egg and chicken thing.
In any rate, I'll pick up the book and find out more.
Posted by: sepa | April 5, 2007 8:46 PM
nanheyangrouchuan --
Okay, so what EXACTLY do you propose. Should we completely isolate China? Who should do the isolation? Do you really believe China is the equivalent of Nazi Germany, because I sure as hell don't and I think any such comparision is, frankly, idiotic.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 9:38 PM
feng37
I certainly do not dispute that not all Western reporters see China the same way. In fact, I think much of the worst writing on China comes from the reporters who goes to China for two weeks, not from the people stationed there.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 9:41 PM
Chip --
I pretty much agree with you. Two wrongs do not make a right and we are entitled to hold China up to high standards. But, it is counterproductive and unfair to hold China up to higher standards than it can realize and higher standards than comparable countries. I would love as much as anyone to turn China into Denmark tomorrow, but that just ain't gonna happen and we need to deal with that reality accordingly. Democracy cannot be imposed and it cannot be rushed. I wish it were otherwise and I used to think it was otherwise, but I stopped thinking that a while ago, before the Iraq war, actually.
I have been heavily influenced by the book, "THE WORLD ON FIRE," and now believe democracy pretty much has to come from within. We can help and we should help, but pushing too hard will backfire. Democracy and freedom are the way, and I have not backed down one bit in that belief. I simply have come to realize it cannot be achieved instantly and rushing it may just slow it down.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 9:46 PM
chriswaugh_bj -- Good point re Turkmenistan. You are right, it has nothing to do with China. More to do with its own late ruler and Russia than anything.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 9:47 PM
sepa --
Interesting point and one to which I somewhat agree. I agree in the sense that I think democracy and freedom are really good for business, but I disagree to the extent (and I wish it were otherwise) that I believe this only holds true for the more advanced democracies.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 9:48 PM
IMHO, there is a reason why human rights are correlated with wealth and that is that human rights are expensive. To create a just, fair legal system, you need to hire and train large numbers lawyers, judges, police, legislators and officials, and this costs money.
Also the connection between democracy and wealth disparity and social injustice is less close than a lot of people assume. Both India and Philiphines are democracies, but still have wealth disparity and social injustice, while Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea were able to go through a period of having a just and more or less equalitarian society without democracy. Something I think has that greatly influences American reporters and the public is the total failure of the "Iraqi experiment." Right now, Americans are just not in the mood to hear about how democracy will solve everything and that affects China coverage.
The resentments and sense of lost glory that Chinese feel is not unique in the developing world. You see it a lot in the Arab world. The difference is that because China has a more or less functioning economy, the energy of Chinese gets directed at getting rich rather than straping dynamite to themselves and blowing themselves up. China has its issues with ethnic groups with legitimate greivances, but so does every other third world country.
Posted by: Joseph Wang | April 5, 2007 10:01 PM
"Two sharply opposing images of China seem to prevail in the Western media..." This couldn't be more true. And it's a pity, because it stands in the way of more balanced analysis.
In this context, the expression "panda hugger" is entirely unhelpful. So too is "armchair sinologist", which often crops up on China blogs when one person claims a monopoly on access to the "real" China. Rather silly.
Anyway, I was interested by Peerenboom's analysis of the "double standards" that have been imposed on China. I tend to agree. Part of the problem, perhaps, is that relatively few non-Chinese (including myself) were familiar with China even as recently as the 1980s, so it's hard to have any genuine empathy with the sheer scale of human development that has taken place. It follows, I suspect, that the natural tendency is to view the country's politics through a post-1989 lense, which obviously puts the spotlight on human rights, often with the most negative starting assumptions.
I enjoyed your review and have added the book to my "to read" list.
Posted by: Ned | April 5, 2007 10:42 PM
Mr. Wang --
Again, I am finding myself agreeing with you.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 5, 2007 10:59 PM
Nanheangrouchuan - you write:
"If Tibet is such a wonderful place for Tibetans, why is it that so many leave for India or Nepal? And why does the PLA shoot at them as they flee?"
I have addressed these points in great detail in the discussion that took place on the PBS discussion forum, at: www.pbs.org/chinainside
Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April 6, 2007
Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones | April 5, 2007 11:02 PM
Dan,
True, I agree with you. I guess I just needed to get out some energy, and I can't agree more that democracy comes from within. I remember having a conversation with somebody about Iraq, China, etc., and he basicly said "why should we give them democracy? They don't want it, and they wouldn't use it. If they wanted it, they'd demand it the same way we did!"
And he's absolutely right, America's democracy (and pretty much every other truly democratic country) became that way because of the demands of the people. We demanded it, and were willing to die for it (well, our forebearers anyway). I guess in terms of China, we can keep encouraging it, criticising it, etc., but in the end, any real change especially in terms of democracy will have to be up to the people. And for right now, they don't want it badly enough.
Posted by: Chip | April 5, 2007 11:21 PM
"Okay, so what EXACTLY do you propose. Should we completely isolate China? Who should do the isolation? Do you really believe China is the equivalent of Nazi Germany, because I sure as hell don't and I think any such comparision is, frankly, idiotic."
My proposition involves the US gov't divorcing itself from the Fortune 500, for that group is what has led us to the China we have today, a "David Copperfield" society in a supposedly far more englightened era.
Your opinion of China v. Nazi Germany is yours, but I can promise you that plenty of China experts who are not panda huggers and armchair sinologists in certain corners of the US, Oz, Japanese and Indian gov't lean more my way than yours.
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan | April 6, 2007 12:32 AM
"Two sharply opposing images of China seem to prevail in the Western media..."
I agree, but I also think it is, at least in part, only a reflection of the two sharply opposing images of China that exist in the Chinese media. On the one hand there are the never-a-point-against nationalists who, for every point of reasoned criticism, must make an opposing criticism of the West. And on the other hand there are the likes of my students who refused to believe me when I told them that I thought the facilities in their college were, for the most part, better than those in my New Zealand high-school. Likewise when I told them that I thought their teachers were as good as those in my country.
I often find myself reflecting on Chinese news articles and thinking that the writer either has too a rosy view of China, or a unreasonably negative one.
Posted by: The other Joe | April 6, 2007 12:37 AM
Hey MAJ and CLB:
Does India have "execution buses"?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5f0_1175771241&c=1
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan | April 6, 2007 12:44 AM
Joseph Wang - you write: "Both India and Philippines are democracies, but still have wealth disparity and social injustice, while Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea were able to go through a period of having a just and more or less equalitarian society without democracy."
Exactly! This is, once again, what I have been arguing now for the last five years plus. Peerenboom also spends considerable time discussing this. And you can add to this list of poorly performing elitist democracies Indonesia, Nepal, Cambodia and Bangladesh. All of these countries, along with India and the Philippines, introduced democracy prematurely, and all have suffered greatly as a consequence. Those countries that postponed democracy until they were wealthy and developed enough, are the more successful ones: South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia.
The East Asia Model works, and as Peerenboom points out, even "democracy is no panacea, this is the case even in those countries typically cited as success stories...in short, democracy in East Asia is often a story of grand political corruption, of clientelism and the dominance of the elite and business interests." South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Hong Kong and Malaysia all suffer considerably from the problems listed above. The fact is, democracy in East Asia relies heavily on good governance by a technocratic elite. Apologists for democracy all too often overlook the fact that political elites are normally always dominantly represented by business interests, and that the rise in money politics in newly established democracies undermine the democratic potential of elections, making a mockery of equality and fair competition inherent in the slogan of 'one person, one vote'.
When China does eventually democratise, which it will unlikely attempt until the country's mean income reaches at least US$3,000, it will almost certainly follow the East Asia Model, and introduce an elitist form of democracy, similar to that of Singapore's.
Peerenboom again: "China will most likely democratise when there is a broad consensus among state leaders and citizens alike that soft authoritarianism has outlived its purposes. The transition is likely to involve a pact among the elite. There is a reasonably good chance that the CCP, or a sizable faction within it, would be able to reconstitute itself as a social democratic party or some other reformist party and then retain power. There may then be single-party dominance for a considerable period, as in Japan, Singapore, and Malaysia."
In short, not all soft authoritarian states produce poor quality governance, just as not all democracies produce high quality governance, which is why there are numerous democracies in the world at present that have poorer human rights records than China.
Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April 6, 2007
Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones | April 6, 2007 12:53 AM
Chip --
Sort of. I think almost everyone (except those in control) want democracy on some level so I do think we should be encouraging and engaging in appropriate prodding. We democratic countries should show the way to democracy, help get other countries to democracy, and encourage democratic elements, but but we cannot make the way.
I hate to always revert back to popular culture, but it kind of reminds me of an old commercial (I think it was for Gallo), that said something like, Gallo will sell no wine before its time. The point being, rushing can do harm.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 6, 2007 7:14 AM
nanheyangrouchuan --
Of course there are people who agree with you, but on what? You have yet to clearly articulate how the West should be treating China today. Let's hear it.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 6, 2007 7:43 AM
The other Joe --
But that's okay, isn't it? I mean it is better to have two views than just one. I also think both views make sense and is exactly what one finds in most developing countries (I think). The person in a developing country tends to be proud of what the country has achieved, yet still very wary of its place in the world.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 6, 2007 7:45 AM
nanheyangrouchuan --
India does not have execution buses and your asking that question shows either desperation on your part or a willful misunderstanding of this post's analysis.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 6, 2007 7:46 AM
MAJ --
I think much depends on definitions. To me, bad democracies are not really democracies at all. In other words, democracy takes more than just elections. I also think you are wrong on South Korea, which in the last ten years or so has become what I would consider a fully functioning democracy. Corruption is way down there, there are two strong political parties, the people take their vote very seriously, and the government is listening to the people.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 6, 2007 7:50 AM
"You have yet to clearly articulate how the West should be treating China today. Let's hear it."
We should NOT be treating China the way businesspeople want us to, ie as a non-security threat, a non-hegemon and non-strategic competitor that we can benignly share technology with and ignore its political objectives. China should have been left alone by Nixon.
Desperation in my post? No, more of a quanitifiable counter to MAJ's claim that India is equal or worse than China in human rights abuses.
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan | April 6, 2007 10:31 AM
Nanheyangrouchuan: We should NOT be treating China the way businesspeople want us to, ie as a non-security threat, a non-hegemon and non-strategic competitor that we can benignly share technology with and ignore its political objectives. China should have been left alone by Nixon.
Who is we? Americans? Westerners? Anti-business leftists?
1) If China had been left alone by Nixon, it would have ended up looking like North Korea.
2) China's political objectives is to become a rich and powerful country and a major great power. I don't find this objectionable, and the Chinese government is making a strong effort to make it so that large numbers of people in the world don't find this objectionable.
Having China a major power is objectionable only if you find something inherently repugnant about Chinese nationalism, which I don't, or if you object to any other power with the same level of power as the United States, which I don't either.
Something the United States is rapidly finding out is that the world is too big to have one policeman and one-power planets have some of the problems of one-party states. Having six or seven major powers would I think lead to a better world.
3) How do you intend *not* to share technology? Chinese can figure out a lot of things on their own, and the real technology is in people's heads. For you to stop technology transfer, you basically have to close US universities to PRC students, and that is going to kill US R&D.
Personally, I like the multi-national corporation because for all of their faults, MNC's generate wealth in a way that no other system has, and MNC's tend to view things from a global point of view rather than from a national one. An MNC looks at me, and the color of my skin or the language that I speak is not as important as how much money they can get out of me.
The problem is that your goals are self-contradictory. First you are complaining that Chinese government and multi-national corporations aren't doing enough to end poverty in China, and then you are also complaining about the consequences if Chinese do get rich. If you get 1.3 billion people to reasonable standards of living, there is no way that China *can't* be a major power on the level of the United States.
In order to prevent China from being a major power, you have to keep China divided and poor, and if in the name of US national security, you choose to do that, this undercuts any moral arguments that you have against the MNC's.
Posted by: Joseph Wang | April 6, 2007 12:14 PM
Dan, I think perhaps you have misunderstood me regarding South Korea, which is one of the East Asia Model countries, It is, because it has followed this model, been quite successful - along with Malaysia and Singapore. There are still numerous problems in South Korea. I lived there for two years (back in 1997 and 1998) and when the Asian Economic Crisis hit, South Korea was one of the countries worst effected. Serious and widespread government corruption (especially where its dealings with the major business enterprises was concerned) is what most economists from around the world blamed for the serious of the impact.
South Korea is nevertheless one of the success stories, and as the country continues to get wealthier, so too does the strength of its major institutions.
Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April 7, 2007
Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones | April 6, 2007 1:43 PM
Nanheyangrouchuan - even the UN has given India a Political Terror Rating scale of 4, equal to that of China's - so India's human rights violations are at the very least on a par with that of China's. Peerenboom, however, along with many others (like the British journalist Keith Sinclair for example) argue that China does not deserve a PTS 4 rating, though India they say, does.
I agree with them, especially if we were to widen our definition of human rights to include access to health care, education, housing, etc. Then China comes WAY out in front.
Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April 7, 2007
Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones | April 6, 2007 1:49 PM
nanheyangrouchuan: I don't think that anyone is ignoring the Chinese government's political objectives, which is to maximize China's comprehensive national power and keep the Communist Party in power for as long as possible. No one is hiding this.
The thing which I think you are having difficulty trying to explain is how those objectives conflict with the objectives of the people you are talking with. What you seem to be arguing is that the Chinese government is so fundamentally evil that working with it is morally repugnant and self-destructive, which is something I and a lot of people just don't agree with.
The Chinese government aren't saints, but by the standards of a typical third-world government, they aren't doing too badly. Part of the reason I think reasonably highly of the Chinese government, is that I've seen much, much worse, and the people who argue for some sort of democratic revolution really don't have the track record to suggest that they are going to do better.
I tend to be skeptical of revolutions because revolutionaries tend to end up being as bad or worse than the people they replace, and after a few decades of running in circles, you end up back to where you were before the revolution.
Posted by: Joseph Wang` | April 6, 2007 2:16 PM
Thank you for your detailed review Mr. Jones, and for the links to your various essays. Shenzhen Kitsch was exceptionally good reading, and your arguments about the Tibetan issue highly challenging and provocative.
I have a question for you about the Political Terror Score that you mention in some of your above comments. What exactly is the Political Terror Score, how is it measured, and by whom, exactly?
Posted by: Tyler | April 6, 2007 6:26 PM
Chinalawbog
-of course it's okay for Chinese people to have a dual view of China. I just wonder if foreign journalists aren't sometimes influenced by them. If we're trying to answer the question: 'why are westerners sometimes unfairly critical of China?' then perhaps one answer (which this review does not propose) is that they've been reading the Chinese press, which is also often unfairly critical of Chinese people, I think. Not the China Daily, maybe, put perhaps articles like this: http://view.news.qq.com/zt/2006/tourist/
which worries about why the 'suzhi' (quality, in the Victorian sense) of the Chinese people is so low. If foreigners complain view China as having apocalyptic pollution problems, well so does some sections of the Chinese press.
Posted by: The other Joe | April 6, 2007 7:52 PM
nanheyangrouchuan --
Wow, almost a hint of a suggestion as to how we might consider treating China. But in the end, you really just say how we should not treat China. So I again ask you, what do you prescribe.
I most certainly agree that businesspeople should not decide US foreign policy as I do not want my foreign policy decided based solely on a profit motive.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 6, 2007 9:10 PM
Tyler - thanks for yuor question. The Political Terror Scale (PTS) was developed by Mark Gibney, who is a Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina, Asheville. It is used by the UN and World Bank, and is based on the yearly Amnesty and U.S. State Department reports. The Scale measures human rights conditions using a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the worst. India is ranked PTS-4, as is China, which means that in both countries murder, disappearances and torture are a common part of life for those who push political or ideological discourse that run counter to those of the government. This kind of violence would have to extend to the wider population in order for a country can be given a PTS-5.
Peerenboom, however, argues that China, unlike India, doesn't desrve a PTS-4, but rather, a PTS-3 (extensive political imprisonment, political murders and brutality reasonably common, and unlimited detention with or without trials accepted - this is closer to today's China, which makes it a PTS-3, not a PTS-4).
According to the 2005 PTS figures, the United States, if you were to go by the Amnesty Report alone, is a PTS-3. Back in 2002 it was given a PTS-2, and in 2001 a PTS-1. This suggests that the human rights situation in the United States has been deteriorating over the past seven years, and once again, it goes to demonstrate the fact that democracies do not magically safeguard human rights. Based on the Amnesty Report, even Cuba does better than the U.S. - it now has a PTS-2. Based on the U.S.State Department, Cuba has a PTS-3. The U.S. State Department, interestingly, does not provide any data or reports for the U.S. itself.
Of course, both Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department are prone to exaggerate the extent of human rights abuses in those countries they don't like, so their reports need to be read with considerable caution, so the validity of the PTS is indeed questionable. The point Peerenboom makes though, is simple: India has never been censured, China is constantly being censured, yet they have both been given a PTS-4, based on U.S. State Department human rights reports.
Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April 7, 2007
Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones | April 6, 2007 9:12 PM
Mr. Wang --
I tend to agree with your most recent comments, except your enthusiasm for a multi-polar world and for the stateless MNC. I will be blunt: if I had my way, the US would remain the sole superpower for the next 100 years. There, I said, it. SO WHAT? I don't have my way nor does the US so let's be realistic and act accordingly.
I think your love of MNCs ignores that though they don't care about the color of your skin, they also don't care about the environment, racism, poverty, war, healthcare or really anything other than making a profit. Now as a capitalist, I have no problem with this. The role of the MNC is to make money and when they seem to care about other things, they are really mostly doing so just to please their constituencies so as to make more money. I do not view them as evil, but I do view them as not being in any way driven by morality. They therefore must be restrained by states.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 6, 2007 9:16 PM
Mark --
I have been going to Korea 4-6 times per year for around 15 years and let me tell you, around 3 years or so ago, things really started happening there, in every sphere. You know how the art in Insadong was always the same; nothing new. Go there now and there is all kinds of great stuff. Movies? Korea is making great movies. I am told its literature is getting edgier. I have noticed noticable changes in its court system. Let's just say that my going out drinking with the local lawyers AND the judges is no more. Seoul is getting greener. No kidding. There are excellent foreign restaurants in more than just the 5 star hotels. It is really on the move. Just this week, it agreed to a free trade pact with the US. Would you have believed that possible back in 1998. What I am saying is that Korea is there and still rising. As you and I would expect, it took time (hell, let's compare freedom and equality in 1880, 1950 and 2000 in the US).
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 6, 2007 9:22 PM
Dan - that's great news about South Korea. In fact, I noticed that South Korea now has a PTS-1. The U.S., as I said in my last comment above, now has a PTS-3. So the human rights situation in South Korea really has improved over the years, especially since the 1980s, when it was ruled by a series of dictatorships. Australia used to have a PTS-1 too, until it embarked on the so-called "War on Terror". Now, sadly, it has been downgraded to a PTS-2.
Judging from your observations above, I think I really ought to go back to South Korea for another sojourn. I enjoyed my time living and working there immensely, and I absolutely love the spicy food. Not a week goes by here in Sydney, when I don't dine out at least once at a good Korean restaurant.
Mark Anthony Jones
Sydney, April 7, 2007
Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones | April 6, 2007 10:20 PM
Joseph Wang --
I too have seen worse. What I find fascinating about China and an aspect which is often ignored, is how much the government wants to listen to the people. Now I do not for a moment think it wants to listen to the people because it loves the people, but rather, it wants to listen to the people for the very same reason senators and congressmen want to listen to the people in the US: because it legitimizes and strengthens their power. Co-blogger, Steve Dickinson, has been slogging through China's new property laws and he has been shocked by what he is seeing in the comments. Things like, "look guys," we know many of you don't want to make private property equal to state owned property, but this is what the people overwhelmingly want and if we don't give it to them they will be pissed as hell. This is in public writings! The reality is that once a government (for whatever reason) decides it cannot brutalize 90% or more of its population, it becomes at least somewhat beholden to them. China passed that threshhold a while ago and once that genie is out, it is very hard to put back.
Anyone want to talk brutality, let's talk Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, North Korea, and Burma, among others.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 6, 2007 10:25 PM
The other Joe --
Good point.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 6, 2007 10:26 PM
"If China had been left alone by Nixon, it would have ended up looking like North Korea."
Rubbish, China was doing a good job at putting itself back together from the great leap until a Beijing opera parodied Mao, then came the cultural revolution.
"China's political objectives is to become a rich and powerful country and a major great power"
The problem is that this goal comes with alot of racial supremacy baggage. You've heard of "150 years of humliation"? And some now even stretch it to "400 years of humiliation" starting with a small Portugese (or was it Dutch) trading post that was planted on Taiwan.
Han chinese blame China's downfall on two groups: the Manchus and the foreign powers. The Manchus are now subjects, but the West and Japan have yet to be taught their lesson for crossing heaven. Never mind that China's downfall was already in the cards due to a variety of internal cancers.
"Who is we? Americans? Westerners? Anti-business leftists?" Corporate greed for cheap/slave labor led the way for reproachment as well as the sellout of Taiwan and Tibet. Being anti-business is inaccurate, being anti-corporate is a more accurate statement.
"I most certainly agree that businesspeople should not decide US foreign policy as I do not want my foreign policy decided based solely on a profit motive."
CLB: I'm glad we agree on something, pro-business foreign policy in the past led to the "banana republics" and the overthrow of quite a few S. American and African democracies. The West is at its best when it makes foreign policy decisions that cannot be counted on a balance sheet.
"What you seem to be arguing is that the Chinese government is so fundamentally evil that working with it is morally repugnant and self-destructive, which is something I and a lot of people just don't agree with."
Yes, that is what I am arguing. The Chinese gov't runs roughshod over its people not unlike NK. Otherwise the FLG wouldn't be contributing to the CCP's profit margin with organ sales.
"but by the standards of a typical third-world government, they aren't doing too badly"
By what standards? NK? Africa?
"Peerenboom, however, argues that China, unlike India, doesn't desrve a PTS-4, but rather, a PTS-3 (extensive political imprisonment, political murders and brutality reasonably common, and unlimited detention with or without trials accepted - this is closer to today's China, which makes it a PTS-3, not a PTS-4)."
A China apologist and the same UN that does nothing for Darfur out of respect for internal sovereignty. Nice grouping, gladly exclude me.
I'm sure Peerenboom and the other author MAJ mentioned don't have a problem with Taiwan being steamrolled in the name of "prosperity and mutual benefit".
"Co-blogger, Steve Dickinson, has been slogging through China's new property laws and he has been shocked by what he is seeing in the comments." China changed its original constitution a few years back because of the enumerated personal liberties in it. Now the constitution only speaks of "moral guidance" and the Three Represents (or "Wears Three Watches", hehehe)
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan | April 6, 2007 11:25 PM
nanheyangrouchuan:
Are there any "panda huggers" who are NOT "armchair sinologists"? Or are the two attributes logically inseparable from each other? Just curious...
Posted by: Ned | April 7, 2007 2:23 AM
>>The point Peerenboom makes though, is simple: India has never >>been censured, China is constantly being censured, yet they have >>both been given a PTS-4, based on U.S. State Department human >>rights reports.
I am not sure why this is such a key point, as censuring for human rights abuses is just a part of political posturing between nations. The only major story in the recent past is the whole Steve Harper and Hu Jintao business -- which was vastly overblown.
India receives a fair amount of flak from the U.S. for human right abuses, especially in the aftermath of Gujarat riots. In fact, they did not allow the chief minister of that state to visit the U.S. because he was accused of taking part in a pogram, which is quite serious -- as he was/ is an elected representative. I am not aware of any PLA/CCP member receiving the same welcome.
With that said, I won't be suprised even if the cumulative of recorded human rights violation is more in India. Unlike China, India is still fighting insurgency in Kashmir & significant portion of North-Eastern India. But the difference is that in India it is likely that the media will pick it up and the government -- with a few exceptions like Tehelka -- cannot bully it to not to report. Since most people/bloggers/maybe even governments (righly) believe that Chinese media is far less independent, they become vary even if there is a small hint of human rights violations because everything invariably gets covered up in China. For example, we still don't know much about the Falun Gong & CCP still claims that 4 people died during Tian An Men. Hell, the practice is so entrenched that contractors in Haidian tried to cover up the recent tunnel collapse in Beijing -- you can imagine then what happens in the boondies. So maybe people hold the iceberg view; where they know that there is so much they cannot see.
>>>> The government in India bans books and censors the media >>>and the internet to a greater extent than does China.
That is beyond ridiculous. I doubt even the CCP will say that.
Name ONE major website that is blocked in India. Besides when blogger was blocked for two days accidentally (they wanted to block a particular blog -- which is still pretty lame).
Posted by: Dataman | April 7, 2007 4:28 AM
nanheyangrouchuan --
There is a huge difference between China and NK. Among other things, China is moving forward, NK is not. History matters, but the more China develops, the less it matters. And again, what are we supposed to do? Squish China now because of what happened 400 years ago?
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 7, 2007 7:04 AM
Dataman --
I do not know enough about censorship in India to respond, but I do know India does block websites from time to time.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 7, 2007 7:06 AM
Oh, dear. I'd love to read this book. CLB, I'm sure you're aware of the fuss that MAJ has caused on Peking Duck. I'm not sure that inviting him to review this for you was the best choice. It certainly prejudiced me against the post, which is a shame.
OK, really blindingly obvious point that no-one seems to have picked up on: this particular 25 year comparison is completely bogus. You take the period in history when China has been (arguably) more successful than at any time in the last 1000 years, and compare other countries, and whaddya know, China looks good.
Here's another idea: the modern Chinese and Indian states were founded in about the middle of the last century. Let's do the comparison from that point on, shall we? Now what does the picture look like? China still such a shining example to the world?
Here's why people are down on China and not on India: in China, Tiananmen, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution could happen again *at any time.* There's no checks, no balances. It only takes one nutter.
As to all these massacres that have happened in India - I'm sure that's true, they have. And why do we know about them? Because India has a free press. Recently in China, there's been a spate of reports on killings in the countryside. Did these never lead you to wonder how many weren't reported on in the 80s and 90s?
And China's economy: I once read an interesting thing about economics, talking about what happens when you wreck a country's economy. It pointed out that after the crash, you always get a few years of excellent growth as the country puts itself back together using infrastructure (things and people) that was already there. Now, China has had more than a few years, but might we not wonder exactly what proportion of the "China miracle" is real growth?
It's a shame, because I'd like to see a reasoned analysis of what's gone right in China. Education is a big feather in the cap of the Party in my view. Health care has slipped, but they seem to have done OK. But it's easy to get sucked in by the hype of China's miracle economy and the government claims of "harmony." With all this talk of "strong government," why is it that whenever it's time for a change of president, the world holds its breath to see if China can manage it without descending into chaos again? Is that the hallmark of a strong government?
Posted by: Phil | April 7, 2007 8:11 AM
nanheyangchuan: Han chinese blame China's downfall on two groups: the Manchus and the foreign powers. The Manchus are now subjects, but the West and Japan have yet to be taught their lesson for crossing heaven.
I think that you being simplistic and incorrect. Talking about what "Han Chinese" believe is like talking about what "white Americans" believe. In any case, no Han Chinese I know don't blame the foreign powers for anything that happened after 1949. ., and what happened before 1949, is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
nanheyangchuang: Yes, that is what I am arguing. The Chinese gov't runs roughshod over its people not unlike NK.
And I just disagree with this. Ultimately, people just have to look at China and make their own conclusions, and most of the people who have don't come end up seeing China as too evil to deal with.
The problem with this view is that if the Chinese government is too evil to deal with, then anyone who deals with the Chinese government is either evil or stupid, and eventually all of the people in the middle end up on the Chinese government's side instead of yours.
nanheyangchuan: By what standards? NK? Africa?
Latin America, the Phillipines, Africa, the Middle East. In short, most of the world. The Philliphines is an interesting example of how a democratic revolution doesn't necessarily help people.
nanheyangchuan: China changed its original constitution a few years back because of the enumerated personal liberties in it. Now the constitution only speaks of "moral guidance" and the Three Represents (or "Wears Three Watches", hehehe)
This is factually incorrect. If you want to convince people that you are correct, it doesn't help to state something that is easily verifiable by looking at google.
Posted by: Joseph Wang | April 7, 2007 9:06 AM
Dataman: So maybe people hold the iceberg view; where they know that there is so much they cannot see.
The trouble is that this might lead to extrapolations that are wrong. People assume that political repression is the major source of incorrect information, and my experience is that this is not true.
It also leads to some counterinitutive effects. One thing that is instructive is to read some books of China from the 1970's which talked about how wonderful China was when it was total hell. The reason for this was that in 1973, China was so politically repressive that no bad news got out, whereas today it's open enough so that a lot of bad news gets out.
There are a lot of foreign news reporters in Shanghai, whereas I don't know of too many foreign news reporters in Lagos, Nigeria. This means that the mess which constitutes most of the third world doesn't get covered. On the week of June 4th, the Burmese government also shot a whole bunch of students, but no one remembers that because there weren't armies of reporters with video cameras.
The internet helps because you meet lots of people who have been there. I'm interested for example if nanheyangchuan has actually talked to Chinese construction workers or if he is merely trying to be rhetorical. I have had long conversations with working class Chinese and Chinese peasants, and those conversations have led to my mostly positive views of the Chinese government. I'd be interested in "comparing notes" with someone who has had similar conversations who come up with different conclusions.
Posted by: Joseph Wang | April 7, 2007 9:38 AM
Phil: Here's why people are down on China and not on India: in China, Tiananmen, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution could happen again *at any time.* There's no checks, no balances. It only takes one nutter.
I don't think that this is true. There are enough checks and balances so that it is impossible for a GLF or CR to happen again. My guess is that if there were another TAM, the government wouldn't have the ability to crack down.
The problem is that people think in terms of "democracy" versus "dictatorship" whereas China today is an oligarchy. A rough analogy could be made with medieval England in which power was in the hands of a few nobles. Not democratic, but not autocratic. Hu Jintao has to answer the the Politburo and the Politburo has to answer to the Central Committee. Power in China resides in a small group of about 100-200 people. The system has been set up specifically so that one crazy person can't overwhelm the system.
Phil: Did these never lead you to wonder how many weren't reported on in the 80s and 90s?
Yes, and you can do fieldwork to figure out what the number was. There are some papers in "China Quarterly" which do statistical analysis on rural unrest.
The problem is that people think "we don't know so there must be total hell" when the actual situation should be "we don't know so we don't know".
Phil: With all this talk of "strong government," why is it that whenever it's time for a change of president, the world holds its breath to see if China can manage it without descending into chaos again?
I think this has to do with the lack of knowledge on how far China has progressed at creating institutionalized systems. Bringing up Iraq again, it is interesting how few people thought that Iraq would descend into chaos once Hussein fell. It's part of the incorrect black-white democracy versus dictatorship thinking that a lot of people have.
Part of my view on Chinese government has been because I've followed the legislative process regarding securities regulation. It's remarkable how many people don't realize that China has a legislative process.
Posted by: Joseph Wang | April 7, 2007 9:51 AM
Dataman
Here is a website about web censorship in india.
www.indiacensored.com.
Here is a news article about India Department of Telecom(DOT) working to
block undesirable websites and blogs
http://www.govtech.net/digitalcommunities/story.php?id=103332&story_pg=1
Quote from "DOT": "we just want to block unwanted sites that have a bad influence on the country's society and poses security threats,"
Posted by: jk | April 7, 2007 1:56 PM
Phil - first of all, you don't really know me from a bar of soap, and if you're so easily prejudiced against anything and everything I write or espouse, then I'd say you have a problem. The events over at the Peking Duck took place two and a half to three years ago, and I have apologised publicly and pivately to the owner of that blog countless times. Much of what is said about me is unfounded and untrue, and those who love a good soap opera continue to this day to bait me by posting comments on various sites under various personas, and then claiming these personas to be me. As far as I am concerned, I'm the victim of a vicious smear campaign, though fortunately I have a sense of humour about it all.
Now on to your criticisms:
Phil, you write: "OK, really blindingly obvious point that no-one seems to have picked up on: this particular 25 year comparison is completely bogus. You take the period in history when China has been (arguably) more successful than at any time in the last 1000 years, and compare other countries, and whaddya know, China looks good."
Sorry, but I fail to see the logic in tyhis line of reasoning. The entire purpose of Peerenboom's book is to examine TODAY'S China. I don't see how this in itself makes Peerenboom's study "bogus". Please explain.
Why should we do a comparative study on India and China dating back to the middle of the last century? If we did, woulod see that both countries suffered from the effects of foreign intervention and imperialism, both developed in different ways, with China today proving more successful than India. So what? What's your point? If we carried out such a study, the findings would hardly, in themselves, invalidate Peerenboom's arguments about TODAY'S China.
You then go on to argue that: "China, Tiananmen, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution could happen again *at any time.* There's no checks, no balances. It only takes one nutter." Like Joesph Wang, I tihnk it highly unlikely that any of these events are ever going to repeat themselves in China. China is a far different country today than it was in the 1960s and even to what it was nineteen years ago. And your argument that it only takes "one nutter" is totally ridiculous and completely unfounded. Are you that naive to think that all it takes is one individual to orchestrate a "cultural revolution" or a "Great Leap Forward". You don't think that China's political elite have serious stakes in the economy, which is now globalised? You don't think that China's sizable middle class also has an investment in the economy and the way it is managed politically?
India does not have a free press. I dispute that, and if you like I'll provide you with empirical evidence to back this up. There is a reason why both Amnesty International and U.S. State Department reports have led t