Posts Tagged ‘China’

Share

We have entered one of those moments when citizens around the world become aware of their global connections. People in numerous regions are revolting against their government leaders. This is most evident in the Middle East – from Tunisia and Egypt to Iran and Libya – where young men and women are courageously organizing to topple dictators. In China, groups of citizens are “strolling” through cities to express their dissatisfaction with restrictions on their freedom. Throughout Europe in recent months groups have demonstrated against governments that seem stymied by slow economic growth and ever scarcer public resources. Even in the United States – especially in “heartland” cities from Madison, Wisconsin to Columbus, Ohio – tens of thousands of citizens have taken to the streets against strong-willed governors. In Madison, teachers, firefighters, carpenters, and students have spent three weeks camping in front of the state Capitol demanding that Republican legislators reconsider proposals to starve public education, cut health services, and crush unions. From Cairo to Madison, political contention has motivated major public protests on a scale not seen since the late 1960s.

A Global Moment

Men and women in these cities are acutely conscious that they are part of a global moment: “The whole world is watching.” Protests against electoral fraud in Iran in 2009 inspired marches in Tunisia, then Egypt, and now Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and other Middle Eastern societies. The courage and hope of one group of citizens convinced others that they too could make demands on long repressive regimes. In the United States, the evidence that young men and women could challenge the guns of dictators abroad surely motivated workers and students to assert their own power, in far less dangerous circumstances. As historians have observed for prior moments of transnational unrest (1968, 1919, 1848) the “demonstration effects” of protests are quite strong, especially when events get prominent media coverage. The whole world is watching, and many observers are moved (and empowered) by what they see.

Global movements do not have single causes. People revolt in different places for different reasons specific to their locales. The demands of protesters in Egypt, China, and Madison, Wisconsin are not the same. They Egyptians are demanding an end to military dictatorship in a context of economic and social stagnation. The Chinese are pushing for more personal freedom in a police state that promises security, economic growth, and single-party rule. The workers and students in Madison are operating in a free and austere environment, challenging the claims of recently elected officials that budget cuts require savaging basic commitments to community and the least advantaged. These are separate movements, with diverse motives and goals. They operate in very different circumstances.

What makes these movements global is one basic theme that frames protests across the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and the United States. This theme contributes to a sense of urgency, an affirmation of righteousness, and a feeling of togetherness across societies. Protesters feel they are not alone, but part of a larger community that shares their concerns, their frustrations, and their moral claims. Despite the local odds, they feel they cannot lose because “history is one their side.” The whole world of forward-looking people is watching.

The “Representative Gap”

What is the theme that offers this global connection? We might call it the “representative gap.” In each and every society experiencing major protests today there are political leaders in power who have strong claims to legitimacy based on established procedures of selection: tradition, elite consensus, party promotion, and popular election. All of the figures under public attack can claim that their authority is “normal,” “constitutional,” and “recognized” internationally. Citizens are not confronting usurpers, but entrenched political powers.

That is precisely the point. The diverse men and women who have taken to the streets in different societies comprise groups of educated, articulate, energetic, and mostly young citizens who feel locked out of power. Established political processes in nearly every major society are organized around interest groups that are corporate, backward-looking, and middle aged. They think in terms of factories, budgets, and public order. They are generally baby-boomers who came of age after the Second World War and are fearful that their present earnings and security are jeopardized.

The protesters come from large social groups (pluralities but not majorities) that have little voice in political systems affirming the present over the future. They are professionalized, forward-looking, and often entering what should be their highest earning years. The protesters think in terms of innovation, investments, and the free flow of ideas among as many people as possible. They are the real advocates of markets: markets driven by creativity, connection, and individual control. Their model is the web-like social networking of Facebook and Twitter, not the linear television and telephone lines favored (and manipulated) by their leaders.

The “representative gap” between the traditional political interests in modern societies and a new cohort of professional citizens is the common source of conflict across the globe. The “representative gap” reflects the demographic, educational, and economic trends that cross cultural and national boundaries. Until a new set of pragmatic and courageous leaders emerges in multiple societies to bridge this gap we can expect more protests, more polarization, and probably more violence. The protests mark a global turning point when the politics of the street require a new politics in the besieged palaces of power. Stubborn entrenched leaders in Tripoli, Beijing, and Madison, Wisconsin will only turn conflict to disaster.

This blog post originally appeared at http://globalbrief.ca

Share

This week will mark the most important period for great power diplomacy since the Cold War. Chinese leader Hu Jintao will visit Washington D.C. for a set of intense discussions with President Barack Obama. The meetings will combine the displays of courtesy and power that made similar events so eye-catching during the heyday of U.S.-Soviet summitry. Hu and Obama will meet as the two most important men in the world. Although they both face many constraints at home, they have the ability to mobilize people and resources on an unmatched scale. Their words and actions will move markets, militaries, and millions of minds. An uncertain and anxious world is watching them as it has not watched two men since Mikhail Gorbachev visited Ronald Reagan in New York more than twenty years ago.

I must say that it feels good to uncork a little vintage diplomacy from the recent past. Summit meetings are often filled with empty rhetoric and misleading imagery, but they do serve a vital purpose. Most of all, they provide a sense of order to the world. The leaders of the two most powerful countries come together, they discuss their concerns in a civil manner, and they pledge to work together. That sets a tone for politics far from the sites of the state dinners. It also reminds onlookers that the world is not chaotic. A few powerful people can combine forces to control, or at least manage, change. Larger meetings like the G-8 or G-20 also provide some sense of global order, but in a way that is much more diffuse and fragmented. It matters enormously to see the two top dogs meeting for a peaceful and extended tete-a-tete.

Great power summits are ordering events. They are times to assess common problems and forge cooperative policies among the most powerful countries. Summits should produce ideas for joint management of problems, not radical or risky proposals. The latter will always come from below the highest peaks of power.

With this global management mission in mind, there are three big things that Hu and Obama can accomplish this week. First, they can affirm a commitment to open and expanding international trade. This requires a strong joint statement and much more. The two leaders should agree that they will work together to open their respective economies. This means a market appreciation of the Chinese currency and a fiscal reduction in American deficit spending, particularly on domestic agricultural and industrial subsidies. To date, currency controls in China and domestic subsidies in the United States have had the effect of restricting trade and raising animosities. Open trade is not a sure-fire source of international peace and growth, but it is a necessary condition for stable mutual relations among the most powerful societies. The scholarship on the topic offers overwhelming evidence for that proposition. Hu and Obama must make that a clear priority.

Second, the time has come to discuss arms control between the United States and China. Summits between American and Soviet leaders often focused on this issue, to very good effect. Washington and Beijing have huge conventional arsenals deployed in and around Northeast and Southeast Asia. In recent years, both countries have increased their naval presence in the Pacific, with more aggressive forward postures. Hu and Obama must open a dialogue about managing potential crises – like the recent events around North Korea, the seizure of a Chinese fishing boat by Japan, and the downing of an American spy plane in early 2001. A commitment to limits on aggressive behavior by both sides would send an important message to regional partners, as well as military figures within both countries.

Third, and perhaps most important, the leaders of the United States and China must make their meetings a regular occurrence. This was the great innovation of superpower detente in the 1970s. It helped to stabilize international relations for the last two decades of the Cold War. It created many openings for long-term political change. Again, the scholarship on this topic is very revealing. By committing to high-level cooperation, even friendship, Obama and Hu will encourage more of the same across business, academic, and cultural communities. They will visibly help to demystify false images of a threatening adversary. Competition will remain a major element of the U.S.-China relationship – and Washington should not apologize or ignore Chinese human rights violations and other misdeeds – but high-level relationship-building will encourage more connections for mutual benefit.

China remains an authoritarian society and a potential threat to the United States. From Beijing’s point of view, Washington remains an overgrown and self-centered bully. Great power diplomacy does not eliminate conflicts of interest and perception. It does, however, encourage a stable framework for broader and more sustained relations between big societies. In the long run, more dialogue and cooperation is in the interests of both nations – especially the one with the more open, democratic system. Ronald Reagan proved that point in his efforts to work with Mikhail Gorbachev. Barack Obama should do the same with Hu Jintao.

This blog post originally appeared at http://globalbrief.ca

Featured Book
Liberty's Surest Guardian

Liberty's Surest Guardian: American Nation-building from the Founders to Obama (Free Press/Simon & Schuster, Fall 2011)

Americans are a nation-building people, and in Liberty’s Surest Guardian, Jeremi Suri looks to America’s history to see both what it has to offer to failed states around the world and what it should avoid.

More at the book website >

About Jeremi Suri
twitter facebook rss feed

Jeremi Suri is the Mack Brown Distinguished Professor for Global Leadership, History, and Public Policy at the University of Texas at Austin. He is the author of five books on contemporary politics and foreign policy. In September 2011 he will publish a new book on the past and future of nation-building: Liberty's Surest Guardian: American Nation-Building from the Founders to Obama. Professor Suri's research and teaching have received numerous prizes. In 2007 Smithsonian Magazine named him one of America's "Top Young Innovators" in the Arts and Sciences. His writings appear widely in blogs and print media. Professor Suri is also a frequent public lecturer and guest on radio and television programs.

Categories