Dingyibus, democracy does not mean letting the loudest people dictate what a country does. Democracy means giving everyone a say in how things are run--and giving everyone the information they need to understand what will serve their interests. Democracy in China would allow open public debate over an issue such as this. The nationalists could make their case, but so could people who advocate a more diplomatic approach and can show what the costs of a nationalist policy would be. The outcome of a democratic process is usually a compromise that most people benefit from.

Choppy,

I don't disagree with your definition of democracy, but if you've ever visited a Chinese BBS you'll find that the overwhelming majority are quite nationalist and very happy with the course this incident has taken. That's even true on the overseas message boards which the CCP have deemed dangerous enough to censure in China. In other words, this issue needs no compromise, it has a consensus.

DINGYIBVS, I'd be willing to accept this sentiment as the final word, except that I wonder whether people in China have heard all sides of the issue. There's a Chinese claim to the islands--have Chinese people heard the Japanese claim? Have people heard Chinese businessmen say, for example, that China might lose 200,000 jobs if it seized the islands? And so on. I think that is a key point in the article. The lack of an open debate allows one-sided views to dominate.

XTIANGODLOKI, You make many good points. Here's what makes us westerners nervous: In the West, democratic institutions provide a structured way to balance competing interests so that nationalist sentiments are moderated by other viewpoints. China lacks democratic institutions, so there are few structures to moderate nationalist sentiment if the central government were to lose control.

I am glad to hear that "boycott Japan" and similar nationalist trends in China are weaker than outsiders fear. I can report that anti-China sentiment in the US has been quite muted, considering China's sudden rise over the last 30 years (with the full cooperation of the US and other Western countries). I hope the disputes that will inevitably arise will be solved through negotiation with no violence.

" In the West, democratic institutions provide a structured way to balance competing interests so that nationalist sentiments are moderated by other viewpoints. China lacks democratic institutions, so there are few structures to moderate nationalist sentiment if the central government were to lose control. "

If the so called "democratic institutions" can do so well to "balance" nationalist sentiments then how come in the US you always hear news about local militants shooting "illegal immigrants" (anyone who looks hispanic) and "muslims" (anyone who has dark skin and wears turbans)? How many Japanese people have actually been killed in China because of Chinese nationalism? I can easily make the argument that far more Americans have been killed because they simply LOOK "illegal" or mulism.

If look at what is going on in Arizona, it should be clear that these democratic institutions actually become the enabler of nationalism as politicians use the nationalist sentiments to get votes.

Finally, do you honestly think the anti-China sentiment is muted in the US? Nevermind the flag burnings, anti-China rallies and all that stuff during the Beijing Olympics, today if you listen to the politicians such as Schumer (D NY) you will think that every single job lost in the US is because of Chinese currency. As the mid term elections draw closer you can bet that more US politicians will be singling out China as the reason for all of the bad things why America is in the slump today. Can you tell me just who the counter-balancing voices are?

XTIANGODLOKI I want to add a bit more to this, if democratic institutions provides a balance then why hasn't it worked since post 9/11, people with differing opinion were simply branded as traitors and swept aside paving for the most jingoistic and militaristic approach, how is this better than the Chinas reponse to its problem?

XTIANGODLOKI, The kiling of illegal immigrants and muslims because of who they are is extremely rare (a couple of cases a year). The real issue is the treatment illegal immigrants and muslims generally. There are some forces that want to treat immigrants more harshly--for example, put them in jail rather than simply returning them to their home country. The state of Arizona passed a law that requires the police to check the immigration status of people they suspect of being illegal aliens. However, the U.S. courts have suspended this law pending review, and it will likely be overturned because only the federal government has jusidiction over immigration. Hispanics and other groups within the U.S. are organizing to make it easier for illegal immigrants to obtain legal status. Hispanics voted in record numbers in 2008 in part as a reaction against immigrant-bashing. Business is lobbying to loosen restrictions on immigration so that it can attract more skilled workers. In other words, democracy is noisy, with lots of different groups trying to get their voices heard. The best way to see what is happening is to look at the big picture--the U.S. continues to take in 1 million immigrants a year.

Anti-muslim sentiment has grown since 9/11 just as anti-German sentiment grew during World War I and anti-Japanese sentiment grew during World War II. The U.S. has a long history of treating new groups it encounters with suspicion and discrimination. This is a bad habit, unfortunately. In every case, though, the suspicion and discrimination have diminished over time, and the groups have become comfortable in the U.S. The same will happen for muslims (who have suffered far less than other groups historically). There are strict laws that protect minorities. For example, I believe the man who shot a muslim taxi driver a couple of months ago will be prosecuted under hate-crime laws, which carry an enhanced penalty.

Chuck Schumer represents an important faction in the Congress, but it is one faction only. People in the U.S. have been complaining about China's trade and currency practices for at least 20 years and pushed for a tougher line against China. So far, they have not gotten their way. The U.S. has consistently tried to make trade with China more open and to avoid confrontation. It was the U.S. that sponsored China's entrance into the WTO. You will appreciate that with the economic slowdown in the U.S., pressure to "do something" about Chinese trade has grown. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. government became more insistent that China allow its currency to float freely on the open market. But the Obama administration, like previous administrations, will try to achieve its goals in sensible ways and will avoid a confrontation if possible.

SUBRASWAMI, Democracy does confer real power, and in the U.S. after 9/11, the people in power were more hawkish. They oversaw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and they set up prisons like Guantanamo and allowed the use of torture during interrogations. However, the hawks did not have complete power. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners couldn't be held indefinitely; they had to be given an opportunity to prove their innocence. And elections in 2006 and 2008 reduced the power of the hawks and then removed them from office.

Democracy doesn't guarantee that a country won't make bad mistakes or that the wisest policies are always chosen. What democracy does guarantee is that no one has absolute power, that all voices will be heard, and that mistakes can be corrected.

CHOPPY1 the reason I mentioned Arizona and Muslims is simply to illustrate the fact that nationalism is alive and well in the US. I don't see the logic in your argument that Democracy Institutions can handle nationalism any better than non-democractic nations. If you take the case of the US I think it's actually worse.

If you think about it, Democracy is one form of government which cannot handle nationalism if the whole country swings rightward, because the opposing forces will not get elected. The elections in border states such as Arizona are perfect examples of this. In authoritarian governments on the other hand, nationalism can be squashed such as China in this case.

Finally, the people in the US have NOT been complaining about China's currency practices for the last twenty years. The US praised China for sticking to its pegging of the dollar in 1997 during the Asian Currency melt down. Had China not done that the whole Asian region may not have recovered even today. In the late 80s and early 90s the US was upset at Japan for doing exactly what China is doing today, which is to buy the US currency in order to make the dollar more valuable. Of course, what is being left out of the debate is the fact that the US prints its currency to lower that value on a consistent basis.

CHOPPY1, Democracy or for that matter no form of governance is perfect, the point is the US prides itself on promoting democracy and freedom and it rings hollow when we don't want to uphold these just because a bunch of cave dwellers suddenly became so threating that we need to go into the lock down mode, while what we needed was more openness and foresight.

It took 8 years to see some apparent change, but things are much the same except for the rhetoric. You honestly believe things have changed??

Xtiangodloki, Let me answer you the best way I can. "If you think about it, Democracy is one form of government which cannot handle nationalism if the whole country swings rightward, because the opposing forces will not get elected. The elections in border states such as Arizona are perfect examples of this."

I mentioned before that no one group gets absolute power in a democracy. In the U.S., power is dispersed vertically and horizontally. It's dispersed vertically in that there are three levels of government: at the federal, state and local levels. Each level of government has specific powers. Immigration is a federal issue, so the state of Arizona does not have much power over this issue. Should the anti-immigrant law that Arizona enacted recently be upheld by the courts, which I doubt, local governments will implement it in different ways--that is, some communities will ignore the law (because they don't have the resources to enforce it).

Power is dispersed horizontally in that power is shared between the executive branch of government (the president at the federal level, governors at the state level), the legislative branch and the courts. All three have to agree for a law to stand. The courts will probably reject the Arizona law. The courts are not elected but appointed, so they cannot be swept out of power quickly. Moreover, the legislature is not elected all at the same time, so it takes at least two election cycles for a new party to take control.

Another point is that the U.S. is big and diverse. Arizona is only one state. Many other states are more welcoming of illegal immigrants. For example, Iowa uses immigrant workers in meatpacking plants, so it advocates tolerance for illegal immigrants.

This dispersal of power will probably lead to a compromise in which border states like Arizona get help in dealing with the real burdens of illegal immigrants while illegal immigrants get a path to citizenship. There will be lots of loud arguments until this happens.

"In authoritarian governments on the other hand, nationalism can be squashed such as China in this case." An authoritarian government can squash nationalist sentiment but not diffuse or eliminate it. If nationalists feel that they haven't had a fair chance to win real power, pressure will only build. If the government becomes weak or something really sparks a nationalist movement, there are no structures to slow it down and balance its excesses.

One final point, the U.S. is not a country where nationalism is strong, but Americans are patriotic. A patriot is someone who wants his country to do the right thing and supports the country when it does the right thing. A nationalist supports his country whether it does the right thing or the wrong thing. There was a multi-national survey done a couple of years ago which tried to measure this. The survey found that roughly 60% of Americans are patriots while 40% are nationalists. The proportions were reversed in European countries, where 60% are nationalists, 40% patriots.

The point you make about America urging China not to devalue its currency during the Asian financial crisis supports my point. Despite pressure from labor unions and some businesses to get tough with China on trade and currency, the U.S. government has consistently pursued a cooperative policy.

SUBRASWAMI, I'm aware of the mistakes the US has made over the last 10 years, but I am not sure whether they are the same criticisms that you would make. Yes, things have changed. The U.S. has emphatically rejected torture and is working to dismantle Guantanamo and similar prisons and to treat suspected terrorists within more of a standard legal framework. The U.S. is reducing its presence in Iraq, leaving behind a democratically elected government that has a real chance to succeed. The U.S. continues to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I've heard people argue that these groups no longer pose a threat to the U.S. and aren't worth such a heavy military response. I do not know what the right answer is, but I am not convinced that the Taliban and al Qaeda won't reconstitute themselves if NATO forces leave Afghanistan. What I don't understand is why Pakistan tolerates the Taliban and al Qaeda.

for offering facts from 'outside of the box', giving a better sense of context and balance.