The Sino-US Relationship

Foreign Policy is running an article about the Sino-US relationship, notably where there are disagreements and the likelihood of them being resolved. I think they did an excellent job listing them and providing explanations.

However, I disagree with them on their last point: that more American trade with China will make it a freer society, therefore Google should stay. Truth be told, I'm in disbelief that such a publication would actually say that (even scarier if they believe it). Increased economic engagement with China will not open their society. If we look back to the reforms first initiated by Deng Xiaoping, he purposely withdrew government and party from the daily lives of the Chinese people because of the mistakes made by Mao during the Cultural Revolution and figured out that the key to a stronger China lay in modernization through economic development driven by demand, not the government. Moreover, as a victim of the persecution under Mao's China, Deng had strong motivations for making sure it never happened again. Economic trade has not liberalized China - the CCP has made the decision to let the market function (to an extent) and is allowing its citizenry to become wealthier. As such, any increased freedom for the Chinese will come as a result of a conscious decision by the CCP or revolution, not economic engagement.

Lessons from Charlie Brown

The relationship between China and the Dalai Lama reminds me of Lucy and Charlie Brown from the Peanuts comic. For those of you unfamiliar with the comic and its stories, in one running gag Lucy holds an American football and tricks Charlie Brown into kicking it several times, only to pull the ball away and having poor Charlie fall on his back.

This comic can easily be applied to China and the Dalai Lama. They've had several dialogues about the status of Tibet, only to have Beijing refuse any change to the status quo. So to drive home the point, China is Lucy, the Dalai Lama is Charlie Brown, and the football is Tibetan autonomy. In the latest development, China has refused to consider greater autonomy (or real autonomy depending on your viewpoint) for Tibet, something that shouldn't have come as a shock to anyone. The international community can pressure China to holding more meetings with the Dalai Lama's representatives, but nothing will come of it - the Chinese government will always cling to its hold on Tibet (much like Lucy and the football).

It makes sense actually. If Beijing were to grant greater autonomy to Tibet, Xinjiang would most likely demand it, along with some powerful provinces of China proper. Consequently any shift by the Chinese government on Tibet could result in a weakening of the central government's control over other parts of the country, something that the CCP wants to avoid at all costs. The Chinese have long memories and it was only 100 years ago that they were on the cusp of warlordism. As such the international community should not expect any shift on the CCP's position on Tibet or any other part of China.