some things to discuss about..
-
Taken from 1421 right? Thanks Suntze.
In one important way at least, the present rulers are similar to those in the past. It is that they are basically autocratic regimes governing (some say enslaving) their citizens without due accountability and rule of law. This is IMO, a great tragedy for the Chinese ppl.
I've read that book many times.The facts do not really lie.And somehow I compare China today and China in the 15-16th Century..the ideals shared by the rulers differed a lot.
Anyone here feel the same way?
The latest news is of course the arrest of Ching Chong, which shows the extreme sensitivity of the Tiananmen incident even though many years have passed. -
to begin with, 1421 is not exactly a book i would flash around as "fact"... it makes for an interesting read but menzes' thesis is more opinion and story than history...Originally posted by suntze:In one important way at least, the present rulers are similar to those in the past. It is that they are basically autocratic regimes governing (some say enslaving) their citizens without due accountability and rule of law. This is IMO, a great tragedy for the Chinese ppl.
The latest news is of course the arrest of Ching Chong, which shows the extreme sensitivity of the Tiananmen incident even though many years have passed.
and why is autocracy such a bad thing? in light of recent developments, can we still reasonably come to the conclusion that francis fukuyama was correct and that liberal democracy is the way of the future? i hardly think so... -
to begin with, 1421 is not exactly a book i would flash around as "fact"... it makes for an interesting read but menzes' thesis is more opinion and story than history...
If you did read the article posted, you'd note that it was not from 1421 but was in fact written by Michael Bosworth. There are many research references quoted by the author which I did not copy into the post.
and why is autocracy such a bad thing? in light of recent developments, can we still reasonably come to the conclusion that francis fukuyama was correct and that liberal democracy is the way of the future? i hardly think so...
On your other point, I don't know what recent developments you are referring to. However, I do share Fukuyama's view about the future of liberal democracy and capitalism. IMO, free and open contest of ideas and markets will prevail in the long run. LHL and the younger ministers are, I believe, now coming 'round to this POV and I am hopeful more positive changes will come about in future.
However, back to Fukuyama, what I dislike about his work is the underlying tinge of American arrogance which seems to colour his writings. -
technically, we are still living in the roman empire. it never really fell.
-
don't think we can judge the history of china using modern terms such as autocratic, accountability and rule of laws. What is truely a tragedy for the chinese race is that since the very early zhou dynasty, chinese have no more reverence for the true God and emperors were regarded as God by themselves and the people. Only the first three emperors, yao, shun and yu passed their kingdom to those who were capable and not their children, all other emperors had their children inherited the kingdom until they were toppled. When man plays God, disasters befalled, dynasty after dynasty.Originally posted by suntze:In one important way at least, the present rulers are similar to those in the past. It is that they are basically autocratic regimes governing (some say enslaving) their citizens without due accountability and rule of law. This is IMO, a great tragedy for the Chinese ppl.
The latest news is of course the arrest of Ching Chong, which shows the extreme sensitivity of the Tiananmen incident even though many years have passed.
Confucius and all chinese teachings teach about virtues such as righteousness, love, kindness and on governance it is caring for the people....and when an emperor did care for the people, china actually prospered for several hundred years until another corrupt emperor came around. The chinese were contented with having food, clothing and shelters. Respecting the olds (good or bad), filial to your parents and loyal to your emperor were considered virtue then. Nobody taught them about equality, freedom.
What is similar between the present government and those in the past is that the government or the rulers believe their job is to provide for the basic necessities of the people but "you dont challenge my authorities." There is certainly the necessity that china move towards equality for all its people, freedom of speech and religion and a set of law that is above all power and money. When and how the changes would take place, given the size of the country, is everybody's guess.
But if you compare the objectives or the result of Zheng He's expeditions and that of the europeans, it stands out very clearly that it was not objective of the chinese to occupy the places they visited, never mind that china did not go further in its maritime conquests or expeditions because of infighting. Chinese, koreans and japanese, share equally long history but we did not see china occupying korea or japan although there were much cultural influence from china in these countries, buddism, kanzi, just to name a few. But the expeditions of the europeans saw colonies all over the world, wherever they could find additional resources!!
If the present chinese government have any territorial ambition outside of its own territory now, that will truely be the big difference between the past and the prevent rulers, but do they??
Back to the original thread, are we ashamed of being asians, like the japanese?? given the recent 100 years of history of asia, we benefitted from the west but we were also exploited by the west; western ideas improve our lives but they also imposes on us their way of life. If we take note of the recent rise of chinese, japanese and korean nationalism, and even "malaysian boleh", we know that asians are ashamed because we are backward in technologies,.....but we really want to remain asian, be it chinese, korean, japanese, malay or singaporean. My only worry is that when we appear to catch up, the rise of nationalism gets out of control. -
sgdiehard,
ItÂ’s quite a long post with several interesting points; IÂ’ll try to address some key ones briefly.
Firstly, I was simply trying to draw a point of similarity between rulers of the past and the present. Whilst “autocratic, accountability and rule of law” are of course terms that we use nowadays, ancient Chinese scholars had in fact researched these concepts extensively. Many of their works date back some 4000 years. Much of these were written in order to rationalize, legalize and ultimately to support their feudal lords; Confucius was no exception. He is often quoted by LKY presumably to justify his own style.
To my mind there is no question that Chinese dynasties over the ages were colonizing their neighbours. One need to understand that in those days, there was constant conflict at the land borders. Examples would be the northern borders against Mongolian tribes, the south against the Viets and westwards against the Tibetans and Turkic tribes. Korea and Vietnam were no exception to Chinese attempts at colonization. However, in these two cases, the Chinese dynasty at the time (Tang) did not succeed. Japan was also known to the Chinese for many centuries. There is a legend that Japan was "colonized” by a group of Chinese during the Qin dynasty and there is some evidence to support this theory. There was also an attempt to colonize Japan during the Yuan dynasty; again, that did not succeed.
Whether it was conscious attempts to colonize or due to a need to repel harassment by the neighbouring tribes (or perhaps a combination of both), succeeding Chinese dynasties gradually absorbed the surrounding regions. It was a process of colonization both by conquest and also through export of Chinese culture as the population in the surrounding regions adopted Chinese customs and are thereby sinicised.
The various Chinese dynasties had been principally concerned with the land borders and did not develop naval expertise to the significant extent until the days of Zheng He. After Yongle, succeeding Ming emperors were more concerned about threats from the northern borders and eventually they stop supporting these expensive naval expeditions.
One can perhaps argue that democracy has not yet been invented in the old days and that the feudal rulers and scholars did not know better. So letÂ’s leave history aside and turn briefly to the present. In this day and age, rulers can no longer hide behind this excuse and deny their citizens the right to freedom and democracy. It applies to all ppl and does not matter whether we are Asians or not. Why should there be any shame in being who we are? Nonetheless, it is a fact (for various reasons that should belong to another thread), that Asians have lagged behind in adopting and applying these ideals.
Nationalism rising and getting out of control is another complex subject and I would briefly give some views. Very often, politicians with their own agenda manipulate nationalist sentiment for their own purposes. IMO we should guard against attempts to drum up nationalist or communal feelings. Tribal warfare and ethnic cleansing are still happening in parts of the world. With globalization and modern communications, the days of military conquest and colonization are hopefully in the past. Nowadays, it is political, economic and cultural competition that has replaced the old habits. Foremost in this competition is the process of Americanisation that is happening around the world. That is not to say that the possibility of military conflict is not there; we still need to back up diplomacy with deterrence. -
Hi suntze,
I agree that the old and the present chinese rulers are similar in that they are autocratic. In terms of accountability the old rulers were accountable to themselves and their ancestors (from whom they inherited the thrones) only. The present rulers are accountable only to their communist party. None of them felt accountable to the people and that is the difference in accountability between an autocratic and a democratic government. Ancient chinese scholars had many ideas about government of ppl, with virtues such as 'ren' and 'de' but nothing is said about 'freedom' and 'equality'. Confucius siad that to govern well the emperor must behave like an emperor, officials play their rules as officials, and common ppl obey like common ppl. That is exactly what LKY wanted us to do. Democracy, with freedom and equality as its main components, is very much a political philosophy from the west that chinese, as a nation and as a race, have just learned to grasp since sun yet sen founded republic of china.
If communists had not taken control of china, under ROC china would be a democratic country today. ROC nationalists would have defeated the communists If japan did not invade china..... we can't rewrite history. It is a true historical fact that over the last 100 yrs, a weak china went through all kind of disasters, internal or external causes, natural or man made. The introduction of democracy, in the form of ROC, supported by the americans, did not make any difference.
It was said that sun yet sen delivered the chinese people from the qing rulers, mao delivered the chinese people from the western imperialists powers who were cutting up china territories, and deng delivered china from poverty. May be it is time somebody deliver china from the bondage of a one party government and give its people freedom and equality. but who, when and how? the old soviet union thought they had western democracy but only to be broken up into pieces with mafia taken control of many cities. singapore is considered a 'democratic' country and our judicial system is the best in asia (together with HK), according to PERC survey, but are we there?
The PRC chinese government need to work toward democracy and give its people greater freedom and equality, but I am not sure how they can do that at the moment. Part of the reason is that i am not sure if the majority chinese know how to handle freedom and equality. I managed an office with 28 ppl in shanghai for 2 yrs and democracy din work for my office.
I wont go further on the issue of colonization or the expeditions unless you feel there is a lesson for us here.
As more and more mainland chinese travel overseas, lets hope that the overseas chinese, whatever the nationalities, could demonstrate the positive sides of democracy. time will come when there would be enough chinese in china who knows how to make democracy works for china and changes will not be very far. The two most democratic countries in Asia, Taiwan and Philippines, are not the good example of a democratic society. -
Hi sgdiehard,
Yes you are correct about Sun Yat Sen promoting democracy or “min chu” although the late Ching emperor (Guang Shu) did try but failed to introduce democratic reforms into the imperial rule.
Who will give Chinese ppl true freedom and democracy? IMO, it wonÂ’t be this generation of CCP; optimistically, perhaps next generation of leaders. The Spore model (many say Spore is not a true democracy) may be viable in the next generation but even that may be rather hopeful.
Your point about ppl being able to handle democracy using example of your office in Shanghai is not a good one since when are private firms supposed to be run as democracies? But I agree, the population must first achieve a certain standard of education and economic sufficiency.
Meantime, I fully agree more economic and cultural exchanges between PRC and the rest of the world is an essential step in the right direction. -
ok... missed the quote on bosworth...Originally posted by suntze:If you did read the article posted, you'd note that it was not from 1421 but was in fact written by Michael Bosworth. There are many research references quoted by the author which I did not copy into the post.
On your other point, I don't know what recent developments you are referring to. However, I do share Fukuyama's view about the future of liberal democracy and capitalism. IMO, free and open contest of ideas and markets will prevail in the long run. LHL and the younger ministers are, I believe, now coming 'round to this POV and I am hopeful more positive changes will come about in future.
However, back to Fukuyama, what I dislike about his work is the underlying tinge of American arrogance which seems to colour his writings.
but i don't see how the future belongs absolutely to liberal democracy and capitalism really...
what we might be seeing is that the world is going to be increasingly diverse with different models of government and development.
china isn't going to be liberal and democratic in a hurry... its model of capitalism is not going to suddenly start innovating either... but the sheer size of its markets enables it to chug forward... -
“but i don't see how the future belongs absolutely to liberal democracy and capitalism really...
I didnÂ’t mean that only liberal democratic governments will endure and accept that the future is going to be diverse. What I believe, however, is that countries that practise peaceful coexistence, tolerance of ideas and market economy will in the long run, be both economically wealthier and culturally richer.
what we might be seeing is that the world is going to be increasingly diverse with different models of government and development.
china isn't going to be liberal and democratic in a hurry... its model of capitalism is not going to suddenly start innovating either... but the sheer size of its markets enables it to chug forward...”
Countries that will fall behind are those in constant strife (eg. many African states, middle east), states that trap their populations in dogma (eg communist states, thankfully not many left, and fundamentalist Islamic states) and economies that are tightly controlled or regulated (ie those practicing tight controls on trade, capital flow, etc.) .
Yes, China is growing due to its low labour cost and large internal market. However, in the long run, unless it takes steps to liberalise its political, economic and social systems, it may be faced with dangers of stagnation or even collapse, in the future. -
So far, only Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are real democracies in any sense. Gerogia, Ukraine and Kirgiztan are up and coming, while Uzbekistan needs to sort out some messy issues.Originally posted by sgdiehard:It was said that sun yet sen delivered the chinese people from the qing rulers, mao delivered the chinese people from the western imperialists powers who were cutting up china territories, and deng delivered china from poverty. May be it is time somebody deliver china from the bondage of a one party government and give its people freedom and equality. but who, when and how? the old soviet union thought they had western democracy but only to be broken up into pieces with mafia taken control of many cities. singapore is considered a 'democratic' country and our judicial system is the best in asia (together with HK), according to PERC survey, but are we there?
Among the former Soviet republics, only the Baltic states have shown respect for human rights and commitment to liberal democracy. If not, they would never have been able to join the EU last May. -
The following article is about US-China relationship and is interesting reading. However, considering that Kissinger now advises large US corporations, it probably reflects just one view of how US-China relationship should develop. The Bush administration has identified China as a strategic competitor and its current policy towards PRC is both engagement and containment.
[quote]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/12/AR2005061201533.html
China: Containment Won't Work
By Henry A. Kissinger
Monday, June 13, 2005; Page A19
The relationship between the United States and China is beset by ambiguity. On the one hand, it represents perhaps the most consistent expression of a bipartisan, long-range American foreign policy. Starting with Richard Nixon, seven presidents have affirmed the importance of cooperative relations with China and the U.S. commitment to a one-China policy -- albeit with temporary detours at the beginning of the Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. President Bush and Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell have described relations with China as the best since the opening to Beijing in 1971. The two presidents, Bush and Hu Jintao, plan to make reciprocal visits and to meet several times at multilateral forums.
Nevertheless, ambivalence has suddenly reemerged. Various officials, members of Congress and the media are attacking China's policies, from the exchange rate to military buildup, much of it in a tone implying China is on some sort of probation. To many, China's rise has become the most significant challenge to U.S. security.
Before dealing with the need of keeping the relationship from becoming hostage to reciprocal pinpricks, I must point out that the consulting company I chair advises clients with business interests around the world, including China. Also, in early May I spent a week in China, much of it as a guest of the government.
The rise of China -- and of Asia -- will, over the next decades, bring about a substantial reordering of the international system. The center of gravity of world affairs is shifting from the Atlantic, where it was lodged for the past three centuries, to the Pacific. The most rapidly developing countries are in Asia, with a growing means to vindicate their perception of the national interest.
China's emerging role is often compared to that of imperial Germany at the beginning of the 20th century, the implication being that a strategic confrontation is inevitable and that the United States had best prepare for it. That assumption is as dangerous as it is wrong. The European system of the 19th century assumed that its major powers would, in the end, vindicate their interests by force. Each nation thought that a war would be short and that, at its end, its strategic position would have improved.
Only the reckless could make such calculations in a globalized world of nuclear weapons. War between major powers would be a catastrophe for all participants; there would be no winners; the task of reconstruction would dwarf the causes of the conflict. Which leader who entered World War I so insouciantly in 1914 would not have recoiled had he been able to imagine the world at its end in 1918?
Another special factor that a century ago drove the international system to confrontation was the provocative style of German diplomacy. In 1900 a combination of Russia, France and Britain would have seemed inconceivable given the conflicts among them. Fourteen years later, a bullying German diplomacy had brought it about, challenging Britain with a naval buildup and seeking to humiliate Russia over Bosnia in 1908 and France in two crises over Morocco in 1905 and 1911.
Military imperialism is not the Chinese style. Clausewitz, the leading Western strategic theoretician, addresses the preparation and conduct of a central battle. Sun Tzu, his Chinese counterpart, focuses on the psychological weakening of the adversary. China seeks its objectives by careful study, patience and the accumulation of nuances -- only rarely does China risk a winner-take-all showdown.
It is unwise to substitute China for the Soviet Union in our thinking and to apply to it the policy of military containment of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was heir to an imperialist tradition, which, between Peter the Great and the end of World War II, projected Russia from the region around Moscow to the center of Europe. The Chinese state in its present dimensions has existed substantially for 2,000 years. The Russian empire was governed by force; the Chinese empire by cultural conformity with substantial force in the background. At the end of World War II, Russia found itself face to face with weak countries along all its borders and unwisely relied on a policy of occupation and intimidation beyond the long-term capacity of the Russian state.
The strategic equation in Asia is altogether different. U.S. policy in Asia must not mesmerize itself with the Chinese military buildup. There is no doubt that China is increasing its military forces, which were neglected during the first phase of its economic reform. But even at its highest estimate, the Chinese military budget is less than 20 percent of America's; it is barely, if at all, ahead of that of Japan and, of course, much less than the combined military budgets of Japan, India and Russia, all bordering China -- not to speak of Taiwan's military modernization supported by American decisions made in 2001. Russia and India possess nuclear weapons. In a crisis threatening its survival, Japan could quickly acquire them and might do so formally if the North Korean nuclear problem is not solved. When China affirms its cooperative intentions and denies a military challenge, it expresses less a preference than the strategic realities. The challenge China poses for the medium-term future will, in all likelihood, be political and economic, not military. -
The problem of Taiwan is an exception and is often invoked as a potential trigger. This could happen if either side abandons the restraint that has characterized U.S.-Chinese relations on the subject for over a generation. But it is far from inevitable. Almost all countries -- and all major ones -- have recognized China's claim that Taiwan is part of China. So have seven American presidents of both parties -- none more emphatically than George W. Bush. Both sides have managed the occasional incongruities of this state of affairs with some skill. In 1972 Beijing accepted a visit by President Nixon, even while the United States recognized Taipei as the capital of all of China, and by another president -- Gerald Ford -- under the same ground rules in 1975. Diplomatic relations were not established until 1979. Despite substantial U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, Sino-American relations have steadily improved based on three principles: American recognition of the one-China principle and opposition to an independent Taiwan; China's understanding that the United States requires the solution to be peaceful and is prepared to vindicate that principle; restraint by all parties in not exacerbating tensions in the Taiwan Strait.
The task now is to keep the Taiwan issue in a negotiating framework. The recent visits to Beijing by the heads of two of Taiwan's three major parties may be a forerunner. Talks on reducing the buildup in the Taiwan Strait seem feasible.
With respect to the overall balance, China's large and educated population, its vast markets, its growing role in the world economy and global financial system foreshadow an increasing capacity to pose an array of incentives and risks, the currency of international influence. Short of seeking to destroy China as a functioning entity, however, this capacity is inherent in the global economic and financial processes that the United States has been preeminent in fostering.
The test of China's intentions will be whether its growing capacity will be used to seek to exclude America from Asia or whether it will be part of a cooperative effort. Paradoxically, the best strategy for achieving anti-hegemonic objectives is to maintain close relations with all the major countries of Asia, including China. In that sense, Asia's rise will be a test of U.S. competitiveness in the world now emerging, especially in the countries of Asia. The historical American aim of opposing hegemony in Asia -- incorporated as a joint aim with China in the Shanghai Communique of 1972 -- remains valid. It will have to be pursued, however, primarily by political and economic measures -- albeit backed by U.S. power.
In a U.S. confrontation with China, the vast majority of nations will seek to avoid choosing sides. At the same time, they will generally have greater incentives to participate in a multilateral system with America than to adopt an exclusionary Asian nationalism. They will not want to be seen as pieces of an American design. India, for example, perceives ever closer common interests with the United States regarding opposition to radical Islam, some aspects of nuclear proliferation and the integrity of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It sees no need to give these common purposes an ideological or anti-Chinese character. It finds no inconsistency between its dramatically improving relations with the United States and proclaiming a strategic partnership with China. American insistence on an ideological crusade and on a Cold War-type of containment might accelerate such gestures. And it would risk inflaming India's Muslim population.
China, in its own interest, is seeking cooperation with the United States for many reasons, including the need to close the gap between its own developed and developing regions; the imperative of adjusting its political institutions to the accelerating economic and technological revolutions; and the potentially catastrophic impact of a Cold War with the United States on the continued raising of the standard of living, on which the legitimacy of the government depends. But it does not follow from this that any damage to China caused by a Cold War would benefit America. We would have few followers anywhere in Asia. Asian countries would continue trading with China. Whatever happens, China will not disappear. The American interest in cooperative relations with China is for the pursuit of a stable international system.
Preemption is not a feasible policy toward a country of China's magnitude. It cannot be in our interest to have new generations in China grow up with a perception of a permanently and inherently hostile United States. It cannot be in China's interest to be perceived in America as being exclusively focused on its own narrow domestic or Asian interests.
The issue of nuclear weapons in North Korea is an important test case. It is often presented as an example of China's failure to fulfill all its possibilities. But anyone familiar with Chinese conduct over the past decade knows that China has come a long way in defining a parallel interest with respect to doing away with the nuclear arsenal in North Korea. Its patience in dealing with the problem is grating on some U.S. policymakers, but it partly reflects the reality that the North Korean problem is more complex for China than for the United States. America concentrates on nuclear weapons in North Korea; China is worried about the potential for chaos along its borders. These concerns are not incompatible; they may require enlarging the framework of discussions from North Korea to Northeast Asia.
Attitudes are psychologically important. China needs to be careful about policies seeming to exclude America from Asia and our sensitivities regarding human rights, which will influence the flexibility and scope of the U.S. stance toward China. America needs to understand that a hectoring tone evokes in China memories of imperialist condescension and that it is not appropriate in dealing with a country that has managed 4,000 years of uninterrupted self-government.
As a new century begins, the relations between China and the United States may well determine whether our children will live in turmoil even worse than the 20th century's or will witness a new world order compatible with universal aspirations for peace and progress.
The writer, a former secretary of state, is chairman of Kissinger Associates. [/quote] -
As i recall, Ghengis Khan camped outside the gates of peking during a doomed siege.Originally posted by iveco:How did Europe become so strong in the first place? Why were they able to conquer all four corners of the world while we Asians languished? The Chinese and Middle Eastern empires used to be powerful during the dark ages in Europe. How did Europe manage to make such a meteoric rise in just one millenium? Don't forget Admiral Cheng Ho may have visited America before Columbus did.
Funny, if the great khan was a little more impatient, he could have turned west and raided europe instead, then countries like germany and france would still be nomadic tribes today.
Amazing when we look at it: during those ages, asians were the most advanced people in the world. From a cultural point of view, i would conclude that our conservatism stifled our growth for change, which ultimately led to our subjugation and colonization by Western powers.
Disappointment.... -
I agree with you. Conservatism only makes a civilisation backward and corrupt. Sometimes, the loss of tradition (and identity) is the only way forward. A sad fact of life it is.Originally posted by BillyBong:Amazing when we look at it: during those ages, asians were the most advanced people in the world. From a cultural point of view, i would conclude that our conservatism stifled our growth for change, which ultimately led to our subjugation and colonization by Western powers.
Disappointment....