Behind the ‘Modern’ China
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes on the Washington Post:
China can go for great stretches these days looking like the model of a postmodern, 21st-century power. Visitors to Shanghai see soaring skyscrapers and a booming economy. Conference-goers at Davos and other international confabs see sophisticated Chinese diplomats talking about “win-win” instead of “zero-sum.” Western leaders meet their Chinese counterparts and see earnest technocrats trying to avoid the many pitfalls on the path to economic modernization.
But occasionally the mask slips, and the other side of China is revealed. For China is also a 19th-century power, filled with nationalist pride, ambitions and resentments; consumed with questions of territorial sovereignty; hanging on repressively to old conquered lands in its interior; and threatening war against a small island country off its coast.
It is also an authoritarian dictatorship, albeit of a modern variety.
…These days, China watchers talk about it becoming a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. But perhaps we should not expect too much. The interests of the world’s autocracies are not the same as those of the democracies. We want to make the world safe for democracy. They want to make the world safe, if not for all autocracies at least for their own. People talk about how pragmatic Chinese rulers are, but like all autocrats what they are most pragmatic about is keeping themselves in power. We may want to keep that in mind as we try to bring them into our liberal international order.
POSTED COMMENTS: 3 Responses
Total BS.
I thought Kagan’s description of China better suits the US:
“filled with nationalist pride(USA! USA! USA!), ambitions and resentments (what more is left to say?); consumed with questions of territorial sovereignty; hanging on repressively to old conquered lands in its interior (territory the US did not buy from the French and the British); and threatening war against a small island country off its coast (Cuba)”.
No war threatens either Tibet or Xinjiang, what is the clueless Kagan talking about? It is true though, that being an authoritarian state China does not offer the venues found in a democracy toward solving the issue of ethnic succession and separation.
“The interests of the world’s autocracies are not the same as those of the democracies. We want to make the world safe for democracy. They want to make the world safe, if not for all autocracies at least for their own.”
Condescending and hypocritical BS. Kagan made it sound like that the US-led west is looking out to the interests of the humanity (BS!) while countries like China only care about themselves. Make no mistake. All that the west does is maximizing their interests. This is yet again another example that showcases the abhorrent hypocrisy that is consuming the west.
Kagan sounds like a typical “expert” that you often find blabbering about something he/she hardly knows.
The war he was talking about concerned Taiwan, I should think; and that isn’t BS, since China has made very clear that any declaration of Taiwan’s independence will bring on war.
I can’t say the US’s call for democracy is very believable, seeing the countless occasions over the years where they have propped up dictatorships, but I think Kagan has a point in saying that the objectives of an autocracy is hanging on to power. And that is what China’s leaders are doing.
And you think the objectives of an democracy is what?