Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nationalism in Asia: Why The Great White Fleet Will Never Quite Go Out of Style
It has become a commonplace observance to note that the Chinese Communist Party has traded the ideology of Communism for a super-heated ideology of nationalism to retain support for its rule among the Chinese people. In fact, as the experiences of all Communist nations to date demonstrates (with the possible exception of the former German Democratic Republic, which made a fetish of anti-nationalism), the two concepts have in practice come largely combined. From the anti-Yanqui posturing of Castros Cuba, to the Junche self-reliance philosophy of North Korea to Stalins legendary calls to protect the Motherland, Communist regimes have always sought to shore up support by entwining the nation and the Party.
The Chinese Communist Party is really no different in this respect from its (former) fraternal brethren. The Chinese leadership, since Maos proclamation of the PRC announcing that the Chinese people have finally stood up, has always used calls to national, ethnic and racial pride as a means of gaining support, particularly among the young.
Additionally, the Chinese view all ethnic Chinese as their citizens, regardless of their nationalities, which is why they have a particularly hard time dealing with patriotic Chinese-Americans. It also explains why the Chinese intelligence servicesso far as we can tell from published accounts, we claim no special knowledge hereprimarily rely on appeals to race to recruit.
The United States saw the raw power of Chinese nationalism among that nations young during the spy plane incident that occurred so early in President Bushs first term that many have forgotten about it entirely. To recap, a routine intelligence mission over international waters and in international airspace was intercepted by Chinese fighters; during the ensuing confrontation a very hot-headed Chinese pilot collided with the U.S. plane, destroying his own aircraft and forcing the U.S. crew to make an emergency landing on Chinese soil.
The uproar that occurred within hours of this episodes reporting in China was a wonder to behold. In what by any measure is the worst breach of the time-worn rules of international diplomacy since Tehran allowed Iranian students to overrun the U.S. embassy there in 1979, the Chinese government allowed the most inflammatory rhetoric and reporting to be used regarding the episode.
The result was a days long siege of the U.S. Embassy in Beijing: the building was surrounded by rapidly nationalist Chinese students, Americans were attacked and not allowed to leave the compound, the walls were battered with paint, stones, and bricks, and anti-American remarks were written on the walls surrounding the area. During all this, the Chinese police and army stood by and watched.
Proving for at least the 188th time that Chomsky-like equations of the concept of nationalism and patriotism so common to left-wing intellectuals and college freshmen alike, the U.S. responded with great restraint. The Presidents calls for resolutions to the issue were statesman-like, calm and rational. The Administration did everything it could to avoid making statements or arguments that were likely to arouse anger in the American public.
Eventually, the matter was resolved, although we do not think the Chinese are aware of the damage inflicted by the incident on bi-lateral relations, so drunk with their own economic and nationalist fervor are they. No doubt they assume that since we didnt bang our shoes on podiums and issue threats that we are weak, decadent and likely to bow before their might.
There are some very, very old Japanese and German gentlemen still around that could enlighten Beijing on the folly of those assumptions, but we doubt the PRC leadership is in a very reflective mood these days.
Now Chinese rage is directed at the Japanese. From time to time Chinese anger over Japanese school-book treatment of WWII erupts; this has happened so many times there appears to be a script written somewhere.
Except, now it appears that the more radical nationalist elements in Shanghai has tossed the script aside and are protesting Japan with ever-increasing vehemence. The Japanese Government, not unreasonably given the honor issue at stake, is unwilling to set the matter aside as did the United States (publicly, that is; privately we did not let the matter go and compensation was paid) and has demanded that the PRC apologize.
The result is a showdown between two arch-rivals that illustrates yet again the limits of U.S. power and influence. To our policy wonks and foreign policy experts, the growing economic power of the PRC as a result of economic liberalism should lead the PRC to behave in a more normative fashion. Since the modern market economy is now central to both the PRC and Japan, the two nations should be moving into a convergence of issues, leading to more polite and co-operative bi-lateral relations.
Such are the dreams of the tenured and the honored. In reality, the age-old nationalisms continue to be more powerful than the pull of WTO treaties and the fact that both nations peoples lunch at McDonalds.
Perhaps a University of California professor can be dispatched to explain to Tokyo and Beijing that international law can solve the conflict?
Or perhaps Teddy Roosevelts dictum that we speak softly, carry a big stick, and alwaysalwaysexpand the power and prestige of the United States Navy in both the Pacific and the Atlantic was much more prescient than even that great President could have dared imagine.
# posted by NewSisyphus
NATO AIR said:Sadly, this argument is more than correct. Even if we had demanded China live up to its promises and agreements before we handed them Most Favored Nation trading status and WTO membership, they still would have acted in the same way they are now.
Regardless though, their nationalism and their "need" to compete with Japan and dominate Asia will be their undoing.
I think the bond right now is purely a financial one with hopes that this will provide an incentive for further freedoms.IceEyes said:This is interesting. Why was it that USA let China become Most Favored Nation at all? Is there a bond betweens USA and China that is... not so obvious? I think China is favoured in more ways, like with the Olympics. They have in turn really done nothing to show their good will?
What will their undoing result in? Uprising? (Is that a good thing?)
IceEyes said:Most countries strive to access the enormous potential of Chinise market. The interest in business is rarely hindered by political opinions. Also it seems as it is esier to accept a "bad behavior" of a nation if the economical gains are big.
As for companies they act for profit, - as always. One can count on that they never cut their profit as long as their actions are within the law. And sometimes even that isn't enough.
But in the case of USA, I wonder if the relation with China also is a practical example of "Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer"?
NATO AIR said:It would be nice if the level of thinking/direction in US foreign policy was that wise, but its highly doubtful.
The US has stood by and allowed China to transform itself from a backwater oppressive state into an economic powerhouse with mass holdings of US cash, substantial levels of pilfered US technology and weapon systems that now threaten US allies and US interests.
IceEyes said:You managed to find and fit all the scary words in one sentence. Europe does the exact same thing, and belive me there is no long term thinking involved here. Actually we are starting the effort to sell arms to China now, wich is a bit... worse, really. but obvious there is no limit of how much the market of China is worth.
IceEyes said:And somewhere here is the key. I don't belive in "especially America". Our way of live is much more closley linked than it would seem, following threads here. I think America stands out because of its capabilities, not the intentions.
I will seriously have to look in to some recent descision making, not least descisions made in my own country, just to see when we expect to "cash in".
Sweden (Stockholm) I'll try to add that to the profile...Kathianne said:I'm sorry Ice Eyes, what country are you from?
NATO AIR said:That is the flaw of all the Western democracies, especially America. Too often long-term thinking is ignored in favor of short term policies that only yield small benefits but avoid larger risks. To win, you must take risks. As Victor Davis Hanson said of US leadership in the past 25 years, every time the US has acted boldly (mostly these were incidents where the leadership was bowing to the long-term interests and potential of issues and problems) , it has succeeded. Where it has acted with caution (often with an eye on short-term interests and needs), it has failed miserably over and over again.
IceEyes said:This is interesting. Why was it that USA let China become Most Favored Nation at all? Is there a bond betweens USA and China that is... not so obvious? I think China is favoured in more ways, like with the Olympics. They have in turn really done nothing to show their good will?
What will their undoing result in? Uprising? (Is that a good thing?)
IceEyes said:Some thinking has been done.
Here is a hypothesis, we are expected to live for, lets say 60 years of active, aware and mature life. I think that gives us roughly half that time in direct hind/foresight. We can, without studying grasp events from like 30 years ago and we can estimate to some extent the future in 30 years. With research maybe we could extend the foresight to say 100 years.
In all democracies we elect leader for like 4 or 5 years. If we want to start something today wich we may chash in the benefits from in, lets say 20 years, the whole ambition maybe aborted efter just 5 years. Righly with the aruments that is has shown no effect. 5 or 10 years may pass and the ambition is restarted and someting else is abandoned.
I found a practical example but I elaborate on it freely, - the use of antibiotics! While the short term use (Say 80 years in this case) shows no negative signs, we are now seeing more of resistant bacteria. In the next 80 years we might stand with no protection at all, due to how we have used the medicine. So the right thing to do now would be to cut down the use, save more powerful antibiotics for the future and start researching a substitute for the whole concept to be put in place in like 100 years. That were to say, if we acted out of the interest of the spiecey, but we rarley do, do we?
Wow, you hit the money. Chinese people HATE Japanese people. I've never seen anything like it. I've had people come up to me, and I quote:Kathianne said:Now Chinese rage is directed at the Japanese. From time to time Chinese anger over Japanese school-book treatment of WWII erupts; this has happened so many times there appears to be a script written somewhere.
Except, now it appears that the more radical nationalist elements in Shanghai has tossed the script aside and are protesting Japan with ever-increasing vehemence. The Japanese Government, not unreasonably given the honor issue at stake, is unwilling to set the matter aside as did the United States (publicly, that is; privately we did not let the matter go and compensation was paid) and has demanded that the PRC apologize.
