Want to Know More?
In “The Dark Side of China’s Rise” (FOREIGN POLICY, March/April 2006), Minxin Pei examines the corruption and waste threatening China’s dizzying economic growth.
Well before the “Asian century” fervor exploded, Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn predicted in Thunder from the East: Portrait of a Rising Asia (New York: Knopf, 2000) that the “center of the world” would eventually “settle in Asia.” Kishore Mahbubani’s The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East (New York: PublicAffairs, 2008) has become the foundational text of the Asian-century school of thought.
The China vs. India debate shows no signs of abating. In “The Next Asian Miracle” (FOREIGN POLICY, July/August 2008), Yasheng Huang makes the case that India’s democratic institutions will give it a long-term growth advantage over China. Razeen Sally dismisses that suggestion in “Don’t Believe the India Hype” (Far Eastern Economic Review, May 1, 2009) on the grounds that India continues to neglect its labor-intensive sectors and avoids reforming its institutions. University of California, Berkeley, economics professor Pranab Bardhan has been one of the few respected analysts to reject both the China hype and the India hype, for reasons he lays out in “China, India Superpower? Not So Fast!” (YaleGlobal Online, Oct. 25, 2005).
Not everyone thinks that Asia’s rise implies an inexorable decline in American influence. Anne-Marie Slaughter argues in “America’s Edge: Power in the Networked Century” (Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009) that the 21st century will, in fact, be an American one because the United States enjoys unrivaled “connectedness.”
AFP/Getty Images
Minxin Pei is senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The augument that Chinese society is becoming more volatile or unstable because of the Urumqi Riot or some ethnic falt lines (between Han Chinese and Uighur muslim thugs or tibetan monks) is utterly false. Quite on the contrary, the ughiurs thugs' barbaric butchering of (even a single) Han's family will be the rally cry that binds the Han Chinese society together -- just as the single barbaric tibetan attack on the handicapped Chinese athlete in Paris last year. An unjust, barbaric attack on a single Chinese will be taken as an attack on the entire Chinese Nation - it is the equivalent of the NATO Arcticle 5, multiplying by a billion times.
Yes, China is more diverse than many westerner think -- China is a continent that contains great diversity -- even among the 92% Han Chinese. For example, as a Chinese American fluent in Mandarin I could barely understand the dialects of southern Chinese. However, on the other hand, most westerners fail to understand that China is not a "nation state" in the traditional european sense, but a "civilization state". What has always bound the Chinese Nation together for the past 5000 years is the deep-rooted and irradicable sense of belonging to a "superior" civilization -- the Chinese Civilization.
Chinese society has its historically, highly distinctive position on race, where about 92 per cent of the population believe that they are of one race, and therefore, from which is the lack of a conception of, or respect for, difference that flows from other minorities. The deep sense of China as a unitary civilisation, together with a pervasive belief in Han superiority, leaves little room for the claims of other cultural groups. That is where most westerners fail to understand that Chinese draw our deep-rooted sense of belonging and identification not from some religions, nation states, dialects, founding father principles or universal human rights, but from our ancient history, culture and civilization. For the majority of Chinese, no matter where he is and what citizenship he has -- mainland, taiwan, hongkong, or european or American -- he is, first, last and always, a Chinese. Ask a New York Chinese restaurant dish washer who he thinks he is, he will probably tell you, proudly, Chinese.
Han Chinese Dynasty comes and goes every several hundred years or so for the past 5000 years. Chinese probably have endured more civil wars and internal turmoils than any other civilization. However, whenever faced with an existential threat, attack or challenge to the "superior" Chinese way of life, the entire Chinese Nation has always rallied around the flag of Chinese Nationalism. That is why no other unitary civilization state, except China, has survived the entire 5000 years' human history.
The witless, end-of-history triumphalism that shaped western attitudes in the post-Cold War era is always good for a belly laugh and is nowhere more misplaced than in regard to China. History is on the move again – and it is not the delusional, teleological, self-congratulating history dreamt up by either the dimwitted, self-righteous neocons on the right or the naive,self-glorifying liberal rationalists on the left, which somehow always meets with themselves as the winners in the middle. The 21st century Pax Sinica is the real thing, a world-changing event that marks the end of dominance of western civilizaton.
Minxin Pei ignores the demographic decline of the European-derived majority in the United States, with the attendant consequences for national political and economic well-being. The lack of ethnic and cultural cohesiveness, destined to intensity in the coming decades, is in stark contrast to the broad homogeneity of China.
Your reply raises some concerning questions;
"What has always bound the Chinese Nation together for the past 5000 years is the deep-rooted and irradicable sense of belonging to a "superior" civilization -- the Chinese Civilization."
This extract amongst others highlights one important issue, essentially it would seem that you are suggesting that a form of Chinese 'nazi' ideology, (this belief in a 'superior' Civilization) that is an innate part of their identity, will be responsible for the eventual premiership of the Chinese state during the 21st century - your line of arguement.
Writing a lengthy response to the article in which you effectively say little else seems to me a terrible waste of energy/time.
You further contend that "no other unitary civilization state, except China, has survived the entire 5000 years' human history."
How exactly has a unitary Chinese civilization survived 5000 years? perhaps you are referring to the genetics of the Chinese race, that truely has survived 5000 or so years but civilization... really? I won't even go so far back as 5000 years, lets instead look at the Shang Dynasty (ca. 1550BCE - ca. 1046 BCE) which marks the first recorded written history of Chinese civilization, which was followed by the Zhou Dynasty (1045BCE to 256 BCE), during which the Chinese culture and literature began to flourish, and in turn was followed by the Warring States period which was marked my disunity between several rival city states.
The historical consensus on Chinese history is that of several periods of unity and disunity as well as occupation by other asian races - majority of which was later assimilated in to the Han chinese population. This melange of asian cultures and politics on the back of numerous waves of warfare, and immigration served to create a modern chinese civilization.
Simply compare the Chinese civilization of the present day to that of the Shang or Zhou dynasty and you will realize that a cohesive civilization did not survive 5000 years. Rather as in Europe and the middle east, civilizations thrived, died, and developed over time - no single civilization has survived unperturbed or unchanged over the course of modern man's existence.
I have always been of the idea that historically China [the east] was always a power. It is possible that instead of becoming powerful, it is just simply processing a few 20th century set backs and achieving the status it has historically enjoyed....
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE