China on my mind

I've been thinking a lot about China recently. The impressions I get of China from news media and other sources are often shaded by a barely-hidden hostility towards an aspiring hegemon. This is especially acute in media from the US, which I feel often manifests a fear and uncertainty towards a country that might dethrone us as the world's major power (or at least share our heretofore-undisputed throne). In any case, I'm never sure how much of what I hear or read about China is based on fact, and how much is heavily biased. Since I've never been anywhere near China, nor have I known many Chinese people, it's been impossible to get first-hand impressions of the country. And because its language is so different from any other I know, there's no way to access most media coming directly out of China, that I might compare and contrast different sources. To this end, I've been fooling around recently with the BBC's online Chinese courses. Little by little I'm learning a few characters, and some phrases and general grammar. I've always loved learning languages, and Chinese is certainly a formidable challenge and a useful language to learn, if I actually have the fortitude to stick with it.

Anyway, a big part of my interest in China relates to its rapid economic development in the past decades. I'd love to know more about how the process happened, what policies the government has or hasn't implemented to favor development, and especially what's going on on the agrarian front. The article on pigs in China that I linked to yesterday has particularly sparked my interest, because it refers to a number of changing agrarian policies that the Chinese state has implemented over the years (rationing of meat in the 60s, present-day subsidies to industrial pork producers, increasing promotion of dairy and beef, etc.). Particularly fascinating is that the government tries to maximize pork production and minimize price, because the labor that fuels China's industry consumes a lot of pork, and if this prized meat were to decrease in availability, there would be grave social unrest.

Basically it's interesting to me that on the one hand China is a big, powerful country that implements policies to favor or discourage certain agricultural and social trends. This is much like the US or European countries that try to improve life through directed domestic policies. But on the other hand, China seems to have lax regulation of environment and labor standards, and rampant corruption, like many Third World countries. So my impression is that China is an odd mix of wealthy country and developing country.

Another Third World-ish aspect of China is that I don't get much sense of a national project, a code, an ethics. Countries like the US or France implement policies and make political decisions, both domestically and internationally, based on certain values, certain perceptions of who they are as a country and what they stand for. But in most modern descriptions of China's domestic and international policies, there seems to be no guiding principle to Chinese government. On the international stage, China makes deals with horrid regimes like Sudan or Zimbabwe, while investing or even exploiting other poor countries with no pretext of altruistic or humanistic principle. It's pure self-interest, with no moral concerns. Some may assert that this is little different from the US, but when we interact with or even exploit other countries, it usually comes with a noble-sounding justification, like extending prosperity or democracy. China offers no justification for its international actions, other than its own interests (access to resources, markets, etc.). Once again I posit that this may very well be due to a lack of in-depth, unbiased coverage of China in world media. Maybe when China makes oil-for-arms deals with Sudan, Chinese leaders are explaining and justifying this decision, but it merely isn't reported. Likewise on the domestic front, China's policies, from agriculture to industry to environment, seem to come with no justification proffered. Granted, these policies may raise living standards or clean up a river, but at least outside of China we are not offered a narrative of why and how certain decisions are made as opposed to other possibilities.

All this said, it is clear that many of China's domestic policies have had beneficial effects on the general populace. In the past decades, China has reduced hunger, improved incomes, modernized transport, improved education, stabilized population growth, etc. Granted, many Chinese policies have had bad secondary effects (abandonment of female babies, environmental destruction, a growing gap between rich and poor), as do policies in any country, but in many areas China has improved quality of life for its people. But I have never seen an explicit justification, a philosophy or ideological underpinning, to the policies enacted in China.

The opposite seems to have been the case in the days of Mao. There was lots of discourse, lots of dogma, but often little improvement in life for the people. It seems that we no longer hear much about the Communist ideals or any ideals motivating the Chinese state and society. I have read that since the 80s the government has made the conscious decision of cutting down on Communist rhetoric and winning the loyalty and acquiescence of the people through increasing prosperity. I think this is a fair decision, to prioritize wellbeing of the people as oppose to dogmatic ideological rhetoric. But it also means that Chinese justification for its actions has become increasingly nationalistic as opposed to ideological, which is to say that there are no moral underpinnings to its national project other than promoting China and the Chinese, whatever that means.

I suppose an effective though quiet administration is preferable to bombastic illusions and dogma. China is one of the few countries in the post-Cold War world that can quietly dedicate itself to social policies. Poor countries in today's world are often beholden to wealthy countries that give them development aid and provide market opportunities. So if a country like El Salvador were to try to implement some inward-looking social policies like agricultural subsidies or tariff protection of local industry, they would get walloped by the rest of the world's withdrawing of aid and trade, and generally scolding them. Rich countries, on the other hand, are often wholeheartedly dedicated to an unregulated market and small government, the neoliberal paradigm, and so social programs are shouted down or lobbied to death, in this case from within the country (think of how hard it's been to get a relatively modest healthcare reform bill into law in the US).

But China is so big and powerful that it can do whatever it wants. A case in point is its control of its currency, the yuan. For years we in the US have been crying and scolding and blustering about how China unfairly keeps the yuan cheap so as to encourage Chinese industry and exports. If it were El Salvador maintaining its currency at a rate we didn't like, we could sanction them or stage a coup or any number of things. But no one can really make China do anything it doesn't want to do.

So China is in a really great position. It is developing rapidly, it is no longer handcuffed to a single rigid political doctrine, but neither is it beholden to other countries that are able to meddle in its internal affairs. As I've said, it seems that China has put its position to good use, putting many positive social policies into play. Ironically, things like controlling one's national currency, favoring national agriculture and industry, implementing a social safety net, were until very recently considered the purview of the government of any normal, reasonably self-sufficient country. During the Cold War, countries from the USSR to the USA to European countries on both sides of the Iron Curtain implemented policies to improve life for their people. Things like subsidized housing loans, guaranteed agricultural prices, and an active monetary policy were not at all considered radical. But as I've pointed out above, it seems that in today's world most governments are unable or unwilling to legislate in favor of their people. The few governments that do want to implement moderate social policies (and that are not blessed with China's size and clout) have to bellow out radical-sounding rhetoric (think Hugo Chavez making an ass of himself on an almost daily basis) and separate themselves from a good chunk of the world, just in order to do things like controlling oil drilling contracts in their national territory, or providing school lunches.

What I worry about is that if China doesn't have at least some semblance of a set of national values to guide and justify policy-making, then it will be hard for the country to continue doing what good things it has been doing. If providing cheap pork to the Chinese populace is merely a political calculation by bureaucrats trying to avoid social unrest, then people's improved wellbeing is not assured. For one, the policy of cheap pork for Chinese workers is already leading to increases in cardiovascular disease, obesity, and pollution in China. But furthermore, if the only goal of current social policies is to pacify and control the people, then the improved wellbeing these policies bring about can be set back if ever policymakers discover an alternative way of pacifying and controlling the people. Another problem that has been happening since China's foray into capitalism in the 90s, and will continue if not actively denounced and resisted by the Chinese, is that elites, corporations, and economic oligarchs can hijack the country's development to favor pro-business, anti-poor policies. Since there's no longer a firm doctrine like Maoist Communism in place, the Chinese state has been all too happy to favor the big businesses that catch its ear most effectively.

Only if there is an explicit commitment by the government and by Chinese society in general to improve wellbeing of all people, can China be assured that it will continue on the right path. Such a commitment to social progress and wellbeing could for instance respond to the problems arising from increasing pork consumption in China by changing what foods are subsidized, hence guiding people back to less reliance on meat and more consumption of traditional vegetables and whole grains. The alternative is to continue grinding forward on a course of development without principle or priority, increasing pork production, favoring electronics factories, welcoming Kentucky Fried Chicken into the country, without considering what is really best for the people.