China

I'm going to begin this by pointing out that China's claim on the South China Sea - which I consider unjustifiable and unreasonable - predates communism in that nation. My recollection is that the infamous "nine dash" line goes back to around 1908 or so - at least.

To expand that point, China has been around for millennia - when I was working in Viêt Nám in the mid-90s, local history was a point of particular pride, going back a millennia or so to one, if not the, earliest universities, and the struggle against Chinese influence was a key part of that history.

Here in the West, many people seem to know of China's struggle against the Mongols in the 1200s; if they are - and it is painful to have to use this word - particularly aware, they may also know of the West's massive, violent, and invasive disruption by forcing opium into China's sovereign territory, and compelling China to sacrifice her right to sovereignty by entering into international agreements that she didn't want to.

In the annals of claims for compensation against the West, the degradation, despair and dissolution caused by the West in China is as worthy as claims for the losses (of life and land, and to culture and spirituality) caused to indigenous people in Australia and elsewhere, from India for the devastation to her economy, those descended from slaves, all of Africa, and South America - where the theft by Britain of silver stolen by Spain was a significant moment in Britain's development of empire.

I don't think those claims will ever be considered by a court, and I don't know that there is an adequate monetary compensation that can be realistically paid (although there are MANY other amends that can be provided - beginning with an admission and apology, and ongoing support to help offset the harm done), but that is a topic for another post - os set of posts, more likely.

In China's case, as I've read elsewhere, she is in the position to say that the last couple of centuries are a "bad time", but that she is now coming out of that.

Most of the analysis of China's actions of late have tended to focus on the role of the Communist party, and that is unquestionably significant - particularly when it comes to China's active suppression of human rights in her own territory (I don't consider Tibet to be Chinese territory, by the way - they threw China out in 1912, just as the USA threw the British out in 1776 and the Filipinos threw the Spanish out in 1898 [which was ignored by the USA and Spain]). However, there are, I consider, cultural aspects that also need to be considered.

The first is Chinese concepts around harmony. Notwithstanding the warping influence of communism, my opinion is that there are some fairly old, almost Confucian ideas still present. Some of these influences are present in the details of the social compact that the Chinese communist party is trying to force onto the Chinese people - for the purposes of thought control, not harmony, incidentally.

More significantly in terms of international relations, there seems to be a tendency to consider that the "bigger" automatically deserve deference - and thus China, as a bigger (more populous, bigger economy, bigger military, etc) nation than the others around the South China Sea, she "deserves" - in the Chinese viewpoint - favourable consideration on the matter of the South China Sea.

However, the other nations involved are mostly more inclined to consider this from the point of view of justice (except for the Philippines, where despot Duterte seems to now be aligning with realpolitik). I have the impression that this is a mind-numbing shock to the worldview and sensibilities of some Chinese that is akin to the reaction of conservatives in the West to the beginning of abolition and racial equality movements, the beginning of the women's equality movement, the 1960s counterculture movement, and so on.

Now, in the West, reactionary conservative dotards (some of whom were in the various groups that greater rights were being sought for - which is why anti-abortion movements include misogynistic women) eventually adapted and moved on - to varying extents.

China, the land of so many innovations (such as Confucianism), inventions (e.g., gun powder) and famous writing, does not lack for intelligence (when I was working there in the mid and late 90s, the local engineers were very intelligent, but were just lacking experience), and thus her words and methods have been somewhat adapted to the new international regime that has developed since World War (part) Two . . . but she stills sees herself as a "big" nation, and thus inherently deserving of favourable consideration - or, at the very least, respect.

My view is that, just as all people deserve respect, all nations also equally deserve respect, and that no nation has to right to expect others to accede to their "requests" or positions (an attitude sadly lacking from my nation's climate change denying dinosaurs in the recent Pacific forum).

Now I want to move on to the thought that actually prompted me to write this post in the first place: China's millennia long history of being renowned business people.

China is not the only nation with such a reputation - back in the Middle Ages, the Greeks were renowned for their business prowess, and going back to before the Roman Empire, the Phoenicians had the same sort of reputation.

China is probably the only nation with a millennia long such reputation - except for the last couple of centuries, where the British used military-technological power to force damaging agreements onto many nations, regions and areas.

To a minor extent, China's Belt and Road Initiative has its origins in China's economic history - but the current manifestation is being warped by (a) China's desire to regain the prestige stolen from her by the West, and (b) the oppressive mindset of the Chinese communist party.

if we consider, for instance, the loans made to Pacific nations by China:

• Chinese political views see the provision of such loans as a means to reassert / regain Chinese power / prestige, but
• Chinese business sensibilities sees no problem with enforcing the commercial conditions of the loans.

Unfortunately, human rights developments over the last few centuries (particularly the last seven decades), combine with fear of the hardline nature of the Chinese communist party, put a different slant on this matter in the West.

Those of us in the West who care about people (not all who live in the West - see my preceding comment about Australian dinosaurs) would rather see such developments made by grants, rather than by crushing a free nation into subservience.

We also see the issues of Hong Kong and Taiwan through the lenses of human rights and freedom, and consider that, just as conservatives in the West have been forced to mostly adapt (except for reactionary dotards like pOTUS45), consider that China also needs to update her path to international respect - including ceasing interference in other nations, which is particularly egregious given China's complaints about milder versions of human rights interest that she receives.

I also consider that China's future pathway to economic growth and development is inherently tied to freeing her people from the current thought control, allowing dissent and discussion, and taking advantage of the new concepts and currents that are brought to light by that - just as allowing minorities full participation in a nation's life frees those resources to contribute economically, intellectually, politically, culturally, and socially.

PS - unlike Soviet communism, Chinese communism does not seem to have been particularly expansionary to date, beyond historical claims such as the South China Sea, and the vengeance meted out against Tibet for their resistance to intrusion by the Long March. That may change in the future: if it does, historical perceptions about China's status are likely to be as significant, albeit unacknowledged, as any intellectual arguments, 

*****

I was going to populate this with links, but my energy levels have not recovered enough to do so. I am also contemplating a similar article on how Australia should react to China. A recent article suggested we do more to provide for our own defence on and near our continent: I support that, but more as an issue of national maturity, than as an action to address Chinese influence. The Chinese influence here that we need to consider is "soft power" - especially on Chinese expats and students.