The China Paradox

How should Americans understand a country that presents itself as simultaneously weak and strong?

BY CHRISTINA LARSON | JANUARY 19, 2011

Until recently, the Chinese paradox that most puzzled Western audiences was how to understand a country that is both communist and hyper-capitalist. But that is hardly the only, or even the most striking, paradox of the modern Middle Kingdom. China is fast on its way to becoming a global superpower, even as it grapples with such enormous domestic challenges as supplying enough energy to keep its cities lit, absorbing millions of rural migrants into cities each year, reining in choking pollution, creating a social safety net, and attempting to lift millions out of poverty. Although China holds $1 trillion in U.S. debt, its per capita GDP is still roughly one-tenth that of the United States. Beijing is subsidizing China's fast-growing clean-tech export industry, even as the skies above the country's largest cities remain a hazy gray. Such seeming contradictions are dazzlingly confusing to outsiders -- and sometimes to China's own leaders.

Of course, Beijing is often also able to exploit these seeming incongruities.

China has long been adept at strategically playing the poor-country card. In the lead-up to the 2009 U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, China's leaders deflected international pressure to accept greater emissions-reductions commitments in part by reminding the West how vast were the lifestyle differences between cappuccino-sipping New Yorkers and Burberry-wearing Londoners and those of subsistence farmers in China's western provinces, struggling to eke out meager wheat harvests from a parched and desolate landscape and whose families huddled in one-room homes lit by bare light bulbs hanging from the ceiling-- in other words, how far much of China still has to go to catch up to the developed world, and how much energy that will take.

Meanwhile, even as China's $332 billion sovereign wealth fund is investing heavily abroad, Beijing continues to reap generous funding from such multinational organizations and NGOs as the Gates Foundation and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. As former U.S. ambassador on global HIV/AIDS Jack Chow wrote last year in Foreign Policy, China has been awarded nearly $1 billion in grants from the Global Fund -- making it the fourth-largest recipient of funds behind Ethiopia, India, and Tanzania.

At other times, the public face of China couldn't be more different from that of Ethiopia, India, and Tanzania. At the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2010 Shanghai World Fair, China invested heavily in putting on a dazzling show. The Olympics cost an estimated $32 billion, including such iconic flourishes as the $400 million Bird's Nest Stadium's 42,000 tons of creatively twisted steel; all this was designed to wow both international audiences and domestic viewers. The impression patriotic organizers wanted to send was simple: We have arrived.

Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: CHINA
 

Christina Larson is a Foreign Policy contributing editor and a Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation.

OLIVER CHETTLE

11:21 PM ET

January 19, 2011

I would say that the 47% of

I would say that the 47% of Americans who name China as the world's leading economic power are more realistic than you. Your apparent belief that current economic size is the only determinant of economic power is over-simplistic. Momentum is a crucial factor in power. People base decisions about allegiance and collaboration not only on present circumstances, but also on future potential. For example a fast rising young politician or executive may be more able to attract supporters or allies than a rival who holds a more senior office, but is nearing retirement. China is rising fast.

 

TOMHE

12:53 AM ET

January 20, 2011

Yes, China is rising fast.

Yes, China is rising fast. But, you have to realize that China is a product of past 5000 years, not something created all of sudden. And that process is a dialectical development process; less of a Marxist revolutionary approach, but more of Hegelian synthesis process. Every new step is built upon a set of dialectical pairs which coexist in the previous historical period.

Therefore, Communist emerged in China in 1921. It was not aimed at to end Capitalism, which China did not really have at that period of time, but to react to the chaos resulted from the collapse of last dynasty QING. But, pure Communism failed to deliver what Chinese expected. China was in danger again. Then what came out was the synthesis of two seemingly YIN-YAN opposites – a combination of capitalism and communism. This process will goes on, creating many surprises as history intend to create.

I would expect China and US relationship follows a similar synthesis process, rather than a revolutionary approach, which probably means an end of everything.

 

FLOATINGPOINT

2:31 AM ET

January 20, 2011

Diversity

Americans pride themselves with the supposed "diversity." Yet most of they seem reluctant to accept the fact the China too is a diverse country. The political system is the least diverse part in China and most people tend to focus on that aspect only. It's a sorry state of affairs.

 

THE AIR KING

10:52 AM ET

January 20, 2011

????

????

 

XTIANGODLOKI

12:25 PM ET

January 20, 2011

China can't win

It's funny that the author would mention China's skipping out of environmental responsibilities in Copenhagen, then to mention China subsidizing the green tech industry. It's funny because anyone with any logic would see that because China is an environmental disaster, it would see the need to invest more in this field. Add further irony into this matter, it's the Obama administration which is now complaining about China's "unfair practices" of subsidizing its green tech industry.

So which one is it, should China spend more to improve green technology, or shouldn't it so that American companies would have a better edge in the market place?

Much has made with the statistic that more Americans made the mistake to think that China is the dominant economic power rather than the US. This is telling of one thing: The American decline. If America is not in a decline as so many authors on FP is trying to demonstrate in their China bashing articles, why do so many Americans feel that China is a bigger superpower?

Yes, china has tons of struggling peasants whose lives will never be even close to that of the average American. This is preciously why China is doing whatever it can to boost its economy. This is also exactly what so many Americans are against China, because China is rising the standard of living for Chinese people in the expense of Americans. So the question to the likes of the author of this article: Would she be happy to see Chinese peasants' living standards grow at the expense of American middle class?

 

SENTIENT

10:29 AM ET

January 21, 2011

yes

yes its true. chiness porno sectory is rissing fast too :)