ramana wrote:
Is China heading for global empire or Soviet collapse?
Dan Blumenthal’s new book wants us to be pessimistic, realistic, and proactive
ramana, thanks for posting this interesting article. One should almost entirely agree with Blumenthal, and the Realism theory of IR. The Americans have been myopic (and therefore optimistic either by design or by default), unrealistic and reactive as far as China is concerned since 1969 when they made their first contacts with it post WW-II.
. . . China is an “empire pretending to be a nation-state.”
This is an absolutely correct statement which most of us miss. IMO, China doesn't fit the criterion either to be a nation or to be a state. A Nation is linked by its common history, culture, and race. On the other hand, a State is defined by its geographical borders and its sovereignty. A Nation-State is a convergence of these two ideas.
Until recently, the state did not have a name for itself. In the Chinese language,
zhongguo denoted the ‘Middle Kingdom’ {
zhong=middle,
guo=~state/city/space} and it connoted the state. There is another term that is also used to denote the nation,
huaxia, which means ‘a civilized society’. The closest approximation to a nation-state is the combination of these two terms that China uses to denote itself,
zhonghua. Therefore, the Republic of China refers to itself in Chinese language as
zhonghua minguo. But since a vast swathe of territories has only been
dubiously integrated with China, one cannot consider China as a State. It either refuses to define the boundaries or stakes claims over lands belonging to other States, thus leading to ill-defined borders.
Is China a nation,
zhonghua minzu {
min = people &
zu = group}? The last Qing Emperor who abdicated in favour of the emerging Republicanism referred to China as the “
lands of the five races—Manchu, Han, Mongol, Hui, and Tibetan—which shall combine to form the great Republic of China’. Since these races have not been assimilated in a Han China, the
nation’s contours are incomplete. Until now, China has five Autonomous Regions. Though China has much diversity in terms of races such as Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongols, Manchurians, Hui Muslims, and Dai people, it has thrust its Chinese language, Han culture, and history on these peoples and has been trying now for decades to make it appear as one nation. China officially recognizes 55 ethnic minorities apart from the Han majority. Mao Zedong’s Long March to save the Communist rebels from the Guomindang Army passed essentially through the minorities regions of Hui, Tibetans, and Mongols, which were only loosely coupled with China, until it reached Yan’an in the north. During the Long March, Mao Zedong promised to safeguard the rights of these minorities when the CCP came to power. But it was observed only in the breach, not in practice.
So, one cannot consider this as a nation too.
It is very much like Pakistan in this regard which is also not a nation-state by any stretch of imagination.
. . . Confucian familial hierarchy is applied to international relations, with China as the patriarch.
The crucial point here is that there is no change in the Chinese thinking that the Middle Kingdom has been created by the Heaven to Sinicize barbarians living outside it. Even Confucius has reportedly lived in the midst of the 'barbarians' for sometime to understand them and make them accept the superior Han culture. He wondered why such a benign, pure and well-intentioned approach was being opposed vehemently by them! Very evangelical, indeed.
China's domestic and international approaches are always seamlessly interwoven. They are not separate. For example, the BRI was conceived not only to export surplus domestic production but also to export Chinese hegemonic influence everywhere. For another, the China Dream that Xi sells to his people is another where it is tied with the same Sinicization/vassalage fervor. The 'Community of Common Destiny' is another where the community (the barbarians) would help the Middle Kingdom achieve its destiny and that 'destiny' would be thrust upon the barbarians as their destiny too. What a noble idea !
. . .And communism, let us not forget, aims to export revolution. Mao sponsored insurgencies in Thailand, Malaysia, South Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
Mao-sponsored them in India too, apart, of course, from aggression. That kind of violence was one kind of making other nations as tributes. Deng changed that approach. But, neither he nor Jiang Zemin or Hu Jintao forsook the ultimate goal of achieving the true status of being the 'Middle Kingdom'. Deng made it very explicit, 'Bide for the right time and keep quiet and build your strength until then'. A very sane advice,
a la Hudaibiya.
. . . Another eerily familiar Chinese euphemism for imperialism is “community of common destiny”.
The Chinese are good at hiding their intentions well. In Imperial times, art forms were used to convey hidden messages and this has been developed into a fine art. Panchsheel, BRI, Community of Common Destiny et al mean the same thing.
. . . It partnered with Russia to source energy and open an Arctic trade route to Europe.
Now, the Arctic is the next big thing that China wants to conquer. This is the last and mostly enexplored area on Earth which has huge wealth. By 2040, the Arctic would become much easier for transportation. The Northern Sea Routes, NSR, would largely reduce the Malacca Dilemma. It would cut costs & time of transportation to Western Europe. Today Russia rules the roost as the ships have to go through Russian Territorial waters and they keep the waterway navigable. After c. 2040, Russia wouldn't be playing such a determining role, perhaps, in the Arctic.
. . . Hu “moved from a growth-and-development-obsessed autocracy to an oppressive national security state focused heavily on maintaining stability.”
Again, it is my surmise that this was the result of the same hegemonic narrative which entwines domestic and international approach.
. . .The theme of this book is that, while China is acting to further ever-grander ambitions, it is also facing profound internal problems and increasing rot in the party.
As Chinese history shows, the grander the Emperors went, then most certainly harder they fell and
zhongguo floundered. AFAIK, no Chinese Emperor seemed to have learned from their own history, which they meticulously kept otherwise. I see no exception for Xi who is the closest of the all-time CPC leaders to being a 'Chinese Emperor'.
. . .Why push beyond the limits of an empire than endured for nearly 5,000 years?
Chinese Emperors (as did any Emperor) pushed constantly to expand their borders. An Empire therefore never has a fixed boundary. It is always fraught. The Chinese Empire was also acquired incrementally. Xi cannot stop that urge.
. . . Still, Blumenthal faces the realist’s dilemma.
There is no dilemma. Realism says that China must be fragmented, at least China must be divested of Greater China. Greater China includes non-Han population centers like the South West (Dai & Hui), Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria
