And how likely is it that China will support the poor, instead of the dictators?
Naazneen has a wonderful point, and one I think is too often disregarded--liberty without order (a point Anne-Marie makes in her book) is not freedom at all. It is anarchy, and terrifying. The order that the Chinese model purports to provide is attractive, in and of itself.
But I don't think we should conflate their "order-based" as opposed to "political-liberty-based" model as automatically entailing good for the poor. The poor of China, yes, perhaps--although their anger at the environmental devestation and ensuing health problems that are occurring in China is a mark that greater purchasing power is not all that they wish for.
More to the point, China's actions have shown no interest in helping the poor overseas, as Naazneen (and I) would hope.
Instead, China's aid has been quite the opposite, and similar to the World Bank at its worst: finance big dams, ego-projects, and palaces in Africa--projects that allow for grand corruption of the elites, and further solidify the gap between poor and rich throughout Africa.
To my knowledge, China has not been investing the vast bulk of its aid in microloans, health care, or schools--or even R and D into diseases it shares with other developing countries. the types of low-profile, high-impact investments that help the poor overseas. It has been investing in governments, so that those governments will remain friendly with China, regardless of what they do with their own people.
One of the wonderful things about this China conversation this week has been its accuracy--its careful observation of what is really occurring on the ground, as opposed to the normal conversation in the Beltway or blogosphere. What China appears to be doing is raising its own people out of poverty--and into an unfair, unaccountable, cronyist system with major health and environmental negatives that are beginning to affect the rest of the world, and for which there is no form of legitimate recourse for its own people. What it is doing overseas is touting the good of order over the good of human rights. Those are two real goods--and order is an essential component of rights--just look at Iraq. But it does not appear to me that China is about to go around helping the worlds' poor.
Well it's dump on China time again. They're not about to go around helping the poor. I'm reminded of John Perkins and his time as an "economic hit man" for the US. "According to his book, Perkins' function was to convince the political and financial leadership of underdeveloped countries to accept enormous development loans from institutions like the World Bank and USAID. Saddled with huge debts they could not hope to pay, these countries were forced to acquiesce to political pressure from the United States on a variety of issues."--Wikipedia
See the diary on Liberia.
And then there was that little dust-up that the US conducted on China's border, which China stayed out of, that separated a couple of million poor people from their lives.
I remember when I was a kid and a new kid moved into our small town. It was almost inevitable that we would go at each other, and after we traded a few blows everything was fine between us. Okay, we're over being shocked and amazed that there's a new major player on the world scene, now let's try to get along.
June 29, 2007 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's worse than Kleinfeld says, actually. There's a difference between order and oppression. China is funding, directly and indirectly what amount to roving death squads in Darfur and Chad.
It's order through superior firepower and that's about it.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 29, 2007 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting that the US hasn't done the same, say in El Salvador, to pick one country?
June 29, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
By no means am I suggesting that.
In another one of these discussion threads I even pointed out that China is doing to Africa what we did to Central and South America.
Please don't mistake my issues with China for US jingoism, that's not what I'm intending at all.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 29, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then why did you bring it up, and what is your evidence?
June 29, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I brought it up because it's true.
If you want evidence, check out Sebastian Junger's article about China in Chad and Darfur, in the current issue of Vanity Fair. He lays it all out.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 29, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, there's one thing I don't understand...
Are you suggesting that because the US has done and is doing bad things that I can't criticize other countries for doing bad things?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 29, 2007 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, criticism is fine if it's accurate, balanced and in context, but yours wasn't:
I think it's worse than Kleinfeld says, actually. There's a difference between order and oppression. China is funding, directly and indirectly what amount to roving death squads in Darfur and Chad.
And what does Kleinfeld say?
What China appears to be doing is raising its own people out of poverty--and into an unfair, unaccountable, cronyist (sic) system with major health and environmental negatives that are beginning to affect the rest of the world, and for which there is no form of legitimate recourse for its own people.
Now that's pretty serious stuff. China has a terrible 'system' with "major negatives" which is beginning to affect the rest of the world. And you say it's even worse than that with uncited references to death squads (which as you know are a staple of US foreign policy).
So the clear inference, without any balancing information, is that China is the world's bad boy when that is clearly not the case, is it?
And please fill us in on these death squads. Are they the same as ours in El Salvador and Iraq, or worse, or better, or what? How far do they "rove"? Etc. IOW it's a scary term without much specific meaning on its own and I contend that you've used it irresponsibly, since you asked.
June 29, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on Junger's article I'm thinking they're not as bad as what we did in Central America but, again we're setting a rather low bar there. Bad enough that the average person who comes across them would, well, not want to come across one.
But, what China's doing in Africa is now in the early stages. What Junger's article said to me is that things are going to get worse, particularly if China follows US precedent.
The reason I said this is worse than what Kleinfeld described is that Kleinfeld seems willing to put a lot aside in the name of "order." I'm not.
Junger's article doesn't seem to be online, but he spells out the attrocities pretty well and they are worse than what Kleinfeld describes.
Sorry you think I'm being irresponsible. I think I'm taking note of what's going on. Guess we can agree to disagree as I rather like your posts and thoughts.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 29, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>liberty without order is not freedom at all. It is anarchy, and terrifying. The order that the Chinese model purports to provide is attractive, in and of itself.
The "order that the Chinese model purports to provide" -- that is truly hilarious. Order is precisely what China lacks. Anyone who has spent more than the requisite two weeks at a five-star hotel in Shanghai know this -- but I just eliminated probably 95% of the journalists writings articles about "China's Amazing Rise."
I also had a chuckle at the perennial "America did it too!" arguments in this thread. Now that is something you don't hear that every single day in China. (Where are the "rolls eyes" keys on my keyboard?) Ad hominem tu quoque is always the fallacy of choice when discussing the PRC.
>>And please fill us in on these death squads. Are they the same as ours in El Salvador and Iraq, or worse, or better, or what?
etc., etc., etc. I read this everyday in the People's Daily. Someone criticizes the Chinese government in some fashion and the inevitable and completely non-sensical reply is to point out something similar or worse that the US has done in the past, as if American bad acts somehow excuse or justify Chinese bad acts. So when someone criticizes the Bush administration, just point out how much worse Hitler was -- this is usually called "providing context," but I just call it hilarious.
________
http://the88s.blogsome.com
June 29, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that the argument isn't one of context, it is one of expectations. China can't alleviate and end world poverty anymore than the U.S. or the west can. Why anyone would expect them to, is rather silly.
China has done more for Africa in the last five years, than the west has done in the last fifty. They've built roads, dams, schools, health clinics, bridges and communication networks across Africa. Was it done out of self-interest? Of course, all countries act out of self-interest. Along the way, though, trade in Africa has increased 5.2% in the last year.
Micro loans are great, but you need roads to take the goods to market. So both kinds of aid are needed, and if China chooses to aid those countries in this way, good for them.
June 29, 2007 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>I believe that the argument isn't one of context, it is one of expectations.
Well, some people would expect governments not to prop up some of the worst dictators on the planet, in Africa and elsewhere. Some people don't have this expectation. Other people believe that as long as the US has propped up dictatorships in the past, then everyone else should too. Other people find it stunningly hypocritical to bemoan the plight of the victims of American policy, while coming up with every apology and excuse in the book for other governments who pursue similar (and worse) policies around the globe.
http://the88s.blogsome.com
June 29, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it does not appear to me that China is about to go around helping the worlds' poor.
I don't see any country doing that...
noam chomsky writes a lot about how the first world countries use "apparent philanthropy" to hide their evil ways.
it's all about resource extraction and recovery at the end of the day.
pat robertson, for example, apparently used his "operation blessing" jets to fly heavy equipment into africa for diamond mining....
To boldly go...
June 30, 2007 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink