Declining empires never go gracefully. And neither will the US empire – addicted as it is to a belief in its ‘exceptionalism’ and its grounding in aggression both at home and abroad.
The attack on the US Capitol reminds us how fragile our ally is. The civil war is unfinished business.Western media have sought to minimise this constitutional crisis- a democratic blip and nothing more!
Joe Biden will smooth a few rough edges but he won’t do much to arrest the decline. He will keep telling us that ‘America is back’ and leading again!
Many of the Biden appointees are retreads from the failed Obama era and it was Obama who led the pivot to Asia with marines in Darwin and hopes of more US basing in Perth and Cocos -Keeling.
The Democratic Party has joined with Trump and many Republicans in what they call a firm line on China. The Democrats were accused in the 1950’s of ‘losing China’. They live in the shadow of that accusation.
The US continues to assert it’s global leadership and hegemony but will not concede China influence in it’s own region. China has a legitimate interest in the South China Sea but we ignore the illegal and giant US military base in Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean which threatens China and much of the region. The inhabitants were thrown off the island with the cooperation of the British.
Apart from brief isolationist periods, the US has been almost perpetually at war. The greatest military risk we run is acting as a proxy for the US in its dispute with China. The record is clear. Time and time again we have allowed ourselves to be drawn into the imperial wars of the UK and the US. We have forfeited our strategic autonomy while parroting on about our sovereignty.
Over two centuries, the US has subverted and overthrown numerous governments. It has a military and business complex that depends on war for influence and enrichment. It believes in its ‘manifest destiny’, which brings with it an assumed moral superiority it denies to others. The problems did not start with Donald Trump. They are long-standing and deep-rooted.
Australia runs great risks in committing so much of our future to the US. Instead, we must build our security in our own region and not depend so exclusively on a foreign protector.
Unfortunately, many of our political, bureaucratic, business and media elites have been on an American drip feed for so long they find it hard to think of the world without an American focus. We had a similar and dependant view of the UK in the past. That ended in tears in Singapore.
In this blog (Is war in the American DNA?), I have drawn attention repeatedly to the risks we run in being ‘joined at the hip’ to a country that is almost always at war. The facts are not disputed. The US has never had a decade without war. Since its founding in 1776, the US has been at war 93% of the time. These wars have extended from its own hemisphere to the Pacific, to Europe and most recently to the Middle East. The US has launched 201 out of 248 armed conflicts since the end of World War II. In recent decades most of these wars have been unsuccessful. The US maintains 700 military bases or sites around the world, including in Australia. Mainly in a bid to contain China and North Korea, the US has in our region a massive deployment of hardware and troops in Japan, the Republic of Korea , Guam and Diego Garcia.
Just think of the US frenzy if China had a string of similar bases in the Caribbean or their ships patrolled the Florida Keys.
The illegal US-led invasion of Iraq has resulted, directly and indirectly, in the death of a million people and the displacement of millions more. How can we deny that the US is the most aggressive and dangerous country on our planet? It is far more dangerous than China.
The US tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War. Many foreign leaders were assassinated. In the piece reproduced in this blog (The fatal expense of US Imperialism), Professor Jeffrey Sachs said:
‘The scale of US military operations is remarkable … The US has a long history of using covert and overt means to overthrow governments deemed to be unfriendly to the US … Historian John Coatsworth counts 41 cases of successful US-led regime change for an average of one government overthrow by the US every 28 months for centuries.”
The overthrow or interference in foreign governments is diverse, including Honduras, Guatemala, Iran, Haiti, Congo, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently, Syria.
And this interference continued with the undermining of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine by the US-backed Maidan coup in 2014. Gorbachev and Reagan agreed that in allowing the reunification of Germany, NATO would not extend eastwards. But with US encouragement, NATO has now provocatively extended right up to the borders of Russia. Not surprisingly, Russia is resisting.
Despite all the evidence of wars and meddling, the American Imperium continues without serious check or query in America or Australia.
I suggest several reasons why this record has not been challenged.
The first is what is often described as America’s “manifest destiny”; the God-given right to interfere in other countries’ affairs. This right is not extended to others because many Americans see themselves as more virtuous and their system of government better than others.
Professor Tom Nichols reported in this blog (How America lost its faith in expertise, and why that matters) public policy polling that revealed that 43% of Republicans and 55% of Democrats supported bombing a place called ‘Agrabah’. This turned out to be a fictional place in a cartoon. Only an ignorant people could presume that their country should bomb a city that did not exist! To this day 70% of registered Republicans doubt that Barack Obama is an American citizen.
The ignorance of ordinary America, and its politicians, of other countries is legendary but possibly just as important is their resistance to any relief of that ignorance. That may not seem unusual – but it is dangerous for a country with overwhelming military power employed around the globe.
The second reason why the American Imperium continues largely unchecked is the power of what President Eisenhower once called the “military and industrial complex” in the US. In 2020 I would add “politicians” who depend heavily on funding from powerful arms manufacturers and military and civilian personnel in more than 4,000 military facilities. The intelligence community and many universities and think-tanks also have a vested interest in the American Imperium.
This complex co-opts institutions and individuals around the globe. It has enormous influence. No US president, nor for that matter any Australian prime minister, would likely challenge it.
Australia has locked itself into this complex. Our military and defence leaders are heavily dependent on the US Departments of Defence and State, the CIA and the FBI for advice. We act as branch offices of this complex.
But it goes beyond advice. We willingly respond and join the US in disasters like Iraq and the Middle East. While the UN General Assembly votes with large majorities to curb nuclear proliferation, we remain locked into the position of the US and other nuclear powers.
Our autonomy and independence are also at great risk because our defence/security elites in Canberra have as their holy grail the concept of “interoperability” with the US. This is mirrored in US official and think-tank commentary on the role they see for us in our region. So powerful is the US influence and our willing cooperation that our foreign policies have been largely emasculated and sidelined by the defence and security views of both the US and their acolytes in Australia.
The concept of interoperability does not only mean equipment. It also means personnel, with increasingly large numbers of Australian military personnel embedded in the US military and defence establishments, especially in the Pacific Command in Hawaii.
The US military and industrial complex and its associates have a vested interest in America being at war and our defence establishment, Department of Defence, ADF, Australian Strategic Policy Institute and others are locked-in American loyalists.
The third reason for the continuing dominance of the American Imperium is the way the US expects others to abide by a “rules-based international order” that was largely determined at Bretton Woods after World War II and embedded in various UN agencies. That ‘order’ reflects the power and views of the dominant countries in the 1940s. It does not recognise the legitimate interests of such newly emerging countries as China, which now insist on playing a part in an international rules-based order.
The US only follows an international rules-based order when it suits its own interests. It pushes for a rules-based system in the South China Sea while refusing to endorse UNCLOS (Law of the Sea) or accept ICJ decisions such as on Diego Garcia, a giant US base in the Indian Ocean. The invasion of Iraq was a classic case of breaking the rules. It was illegal. The resultant death and destruction in Iraq met the criteria for war crimes. But the culprits have got off scot-free. Only Tony Blair has suffered reputational damage.
In his petulance and ignorance, Donald Trump was hell-bent on destroying the WTO and the WHO, both key institutions in a global rules-based order.
It is a myth that democracies like America will behave internationally at a higher level of morality. Countries act in their own interests as they perceive them. We need to discount the noble ideas espoused by Americans on how they run their own country on the domestic front and look instead at how they consistently treat other countries. Consider how the Kurds were treated. They led the fight against ISIS but were then largely abandoned by the US and other ‘allies’. The scrapping of the alliance with them was made more dishonourable by the US/Saudi alliance with the resulting tragedy in Yemen.
The US claims about how well they run ‘democracy’ in their own country are challenged on many fronts. Alongside great wealth and privilege, 43 million US citizens live in poverty. They have a massive prison population with its indelible racist connotations. Guns are ubiquitous but refuse to address the issue. Violence is as American as cherry pie. It is embedded in US behaviour both at home and abroad.
The founding documents of the US inspire Americans and many people throughout the world. “The land of the free and the home of the brave” still has a clarion call. Unfortunately, those core values have often been denied to others. For example, when the Philippines sought US support it was invaded instead. Ho Chi Minh wanted US support for independence but Vietnam was then invaded.
Like many democracies, including our own, money and vested interests are corrupting public life. As some have described it, ‘Democracy’ in the US has been replaced by ‘Donocracy’, with practically no restrictions on funding of elections and political lobbying for decades. House of Representatives electorates are gerrymandered and poor and minority group voters are often excluded from the rolls. The powerful Jewish lobby, supported by fundamentalist Christians, has run US policy off the rails on Israel and the Middle East. With enormous US backing Israel is well on the way to becoming an apartheid state The powerful private health insurance industry has mired the US in the most expensive and inefficient health services in the world
Our risky dependence on the US cannot be avoided or excused by laying problems at the door of Donald Trump . Malcolm Fraser warned us about a dangerous ally long before Donald Trump came on the scene. US obsession with war and with overthrowing or undermining foreign governments goes back over a century. So does domestic gun violence,inequality and racism.
Donald Trump excesses are not likely to significantly move American policies from what has become the norm over two centuries.
Hugh White has pointed out, the US has in effect now given up looking after anyone but itself – “America first” – which makes it very dangerous for a country to be joined at the hip with the US, with or without Donald Trump. It could, of course, be argued that Trump is just being honest and saying what US presidents have always done, looking after their own interests even if they refuse to admit it.
A major voice in articulating American extremism and the American Imperium is Fox News and Rupert Murdoch who exert their influence not just in America but also in the UK and Australia. Fox News supported the invasion of Iraq and is mindless of the terrible consequences. Rupert Murdoch applauded the invasion of Iraq because it would reduce oil prices. Fox and News Corp are leading sceptics on climate change which threatens our planet. News Corp underpins American imperialist intentions. The New York Times tells us that outside the White House, Rupert Murdoch was Trump’s chief adviser. God help us!
In the past as in the Vietnam war, the good sense of the American people turned the tide. It is now a moot point whether the US can turn the tide again. The sickness is now more entrenched by Fox News and other moneyed extremists.
But it is not just the destructive role of News Corp in the US, UK and Australia. Our media, including the ABC and even SBS, is so derivative. Our media seems to regard Australia as an island parked off New York. We are saturated with news, views, entertainment and sit-coms from the US. It is so pervasive and extensive, we don’t recognize it for its very nature. The last thing a fish recognizes is water. We really do have a ‘white man’ media’. We see it most obviously today in its paranoia over China.
Despite continual wars, often unsuccessful, the overthrow or subversion of foreign governments and declining US economic influence, US hegemony and domination of Australian thinking continues. Despite all the evidence, why do we continue in denial?
One reason is that as a small, isolated and white community in Asia we have historically sought an outside protector, first the UK and when that failed, the US.
We are often told that we have shared values and common institutions first with the UK and now with the US. But counties will always act first in their own interests as Australian farmers found as a result of Trump’s dealing with China.
We continue to seek security from our region through a US protector rather than, as Paul Keating put it, security within our own region. Our long-term future depends on relations in our region and not reliance on a dangerous and distant ally.
Another reason why we are in denial about the American Imperium, is, as I have described, the saturation of our media with US news, views and entertainment. We do not have an independent media. Whatever the US media says about tax cuts for the wealthy, defence or climate change it inevitably gets a good run in our derivative media.
A further reason for the continuing US hegemony in Australian attitudes is the seduction of Australian opinion leaders over decades who have benefitted from American largesse and support – in the media, politics, bureaucracy, business, trade unions, universities and think-tanks. Thousands of influential Australians have been co-opted by US money and support in travel, ‘dialogues’, study centres and think tanks. That is real ‘foreign influence’.
A US citizen, Rupert Murdoch makes and breaks Australian governments. US investors have controlling interests in our largest companies
China is a beginner in this soft power game.
How long will Australian denial of US policies continue? Are our political leaders right in their assessment that any questioning of the threats posed by our interpretation of the benefits and obligations of the US alliance will lose them an election?
In so far as China is any sort of distant threat it would be much less so if we were not so subservient to the US. The great risk of war with China is if we continue to act as a proxy for the US. Will we join the US in a military standoff over Taiwan?
What will we do if the US decides to follow the advice of some of its senior generals and use tactical nuclear weapons in North Korea? Their use would engage the US/Australian facilities in Central Australia a fact that would not escape the notice of China
We are a nation in denial that we are ‘joined at the hip’ to a dangerous ,erratic and risky ally. Apart from brief isolationist periods, the US has been almost perpetually at war.
No US president in recent decades has successfully managed let alone controlled the US military,industrial,political and intelligence complex . We follow in the wake of that complex. We ceded our sovereignty long ago .
John Menadue is the Founder and Editor in Chief of Pearls and Irritations. He was formerly Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, Ambassador to Japan, Secretary of the Department of Immigration and CEO of Qantas.
Comments
53 responses to “Australia: Clinging to a declining and aggressive US. An updated repost”
There are some articles that distil a lot of troubling thoughts into clarity and give the explanations and context for the events that have troubled me so that I can be better explain to others. This is such an article- Thank you
John
A powerful summation of Australia crouching in the shadows of perceived US protectionism.
Brilliant John!
At 83, it is just shattering to see the potential of this nation forfeited on the altar of military involvement over just 120 years since flawed federation. And socially; the values of the elder generation preceding ‘baby boomers’ have more or less been trashed.
Considering the degree to which Australia has subordinated itself to Anglo-American hegemony, we have likely passed a point of no return regarding the possibility of closer nexus with SE Asia in particular. We are cementing an image of being the 51st US State.
Great article John. In regrd to soft power and the PRC its true they are beginners. And they are having beginners luck. Xi must be hardly able to believe his luck. Biden is virtually senile and his policy on PRC is incoherent. His party is facing a wipe out from the Trumpists if it cant fix the COVID pandemic and unemployment crisis before the 2024 elections. Suga’s popularity rating in Japan has plummeted 16% in six months, Modi’s India is paralysed by the farmers strike and the US has told the Indians not to bring its chugging ancient air craft carrier into the South China Sea such is its vulnerability to PLA missiles. And Xi has Scotty in Australia. A gift that keeps giving. Xi has been hit in the arse by the proverbial rainbow.
Absolutely brilliant article spoken from the heart John. You have the best summary of the situation I have ever seen. It should be read in parliament every day it sits, and posted on the front page of every newspaper in the land. We are in such bad hands, and a weak Labor can only talk in terms of avoiding wedges. They’ve been doing that for years on most major issues.
When you read about Linda Reynold’s pathway to becoming Defence minister as outlined by Brian Toohey, we can now clearly see that the military industrial complex has a direct voice in parliament and is managing our core defence issues. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/king-of-lemons-australia-swindled-by-lockheed-martin-and-its-joint-strike-fighter/
What concerns me is the connections of the entire Liberal Party to the military industrial complex (MIC), with post-political careers, and that they only seem to listen to the ASPI, yet another puppet of the MIC, US corporations, and the US government itself.
Brian Toohey in the linked article above also says:
“Just as disturbingly, the complete corporate capture of the Pentagon means that Lockheed Martin ultimately flies Australia’s F-35s via extended data communications links from the plane back to the manufacturer in the US. The pilot relies on a constant stream of input from the US, using a communications link that could potentially be hacked or jammed thousands of kilometres from the Australian pilot’s actual location.”
Yes John, our sovereignty has been up for grabs, ceded in full now, and when do we call it betrayal?
If we need a better example of how the US respects no one else’s sovereignty we only have to look at home.
Even on the American side, their own government is a hostage to LM in IP rights, data collection and maintenance logistics of the F-35. Basically paying trillions for the dubious privilege of being an mere operator but not the owner.
Pretty clear cut on who is actually holding the real power over there.
Even on the American side, their own government is a hostage to LM in IP rights, data collection and maintenance logistics of the F-35. Basically paying trillions for the dubious privilege of being an mere operator but not the owner.
Pretty clear cut on who is actually holding the real power over there.
Even on the American side, their own government is a hostage to LM in IP rights, data collection and maintenance logistics of the F-35. Basically paying trillions for the dubious privilege of being an mere operator but not the owner.
Pretty clear cut on who is actually holding the real power over there.
What I think is that the introduction of Chinese investment is so necessary. First, Chinese investment competes with the United States in Australia, which will reduce the predation of Australia by US investment. Of course, considering that most of the Australian mass media serve American capital, it is no wonder they will hype the threat of Chinese investment to Australia.
Secondly, China’s investment in Australia also prevents the relationship between China and Australia from developing in an extreme direction (as it is now). At least when China bans Australian coal and lobster, it will face domestic opposition pressure, which comes from people who have investments in Australia, and even state-owned enterprises.
In the same way, Australia should also increase investment in China, and Australian companies should also share in the profits brought by China’s development. This can also help Australian politicians to maintain their sense of China at all times.
Japan also provides an example for Australia. Although Japan is even more advanced than Australia in its opposition to China, coupled with the territorial disputes between the two countries and historical issues left over from World War II, the relationship between Japan and China may be worse than the relationship between Australia and China, no matter how you look at it. But in fact the opposite. China has taken much gentler measures against Japan. While Japan is consistent with the West in its fight against China, it also ensures that there are enough pro-China voices in the country that can be heard by China. Behind the phenomenon is that the two countries have greater investment in each other’s country than most people think. This asset makes both parties more cautious in taking actions.
This principle also applies in Sino-US relations. Therefore, after Trump’s fall, the Chinese government has been sending signals to blame Trump himself for the deterioration of Sino-US relations, while showing a willingness to dialogue with the Democratic government.
Compared with the ruthlessness shown by China to Australia, China’s patience with the United States and patience with Japan show a good contrast. This is worth thinking about by politicians.
All very good points Alex and your conclusions are spot on.
If only some Australians read Chinese newspapers instead of always castigating it as propaganda.
The tone in even the Global Times is often far more on the side of rebuilding relations, and now showing hope for a better outcome with Biden. I think they often hold out the olive branch and are now far more cooperative in seeking peaceful solutions and mending the damage caused by an abusive and racist Trump.
Americans are very good at pointing the finger at other countries, but it is only ever a ploy so no one will ever look at what they do. Since in Australia there is no difference between foreign policy – we follow US views and geopolitical aims – our government and the aligned media do exactly the same finger pointing.
If we are talking about Murdoch and other media corporation dominance of the narrative and political discourse I would think the work of Julian Assange and Wikileaks exposing war crimes and hidden communications between governments warrants a mention.Given the level of the American ,UK determination with the complicity of the Australian government in his persecution and the determination of the US government to silence him for 175 years what has been revealed must be of vital importance to the US and it’s minions. Such is the threat to them not by bombs and missiles but by knowledge and information it is as though they have gone to war on one man and the principles he represents those of Free Speech and Free Press and the public’s right to know.
The keyboard has superseded the pen as being mightier than the sword.
It’s Julian Assange today other journalists and publishers tomorrow.
Well done John. A veritable tour de force. Maybe it is time to consider publishing your essays.
Well said, John.
Bravo John !
I am uncomfortable with the Australian exceptionalism of this article. It assumes we Australians could possibly stand up to the arrogance we perceive as coming from the US, when the same arrogance, mixed with a bit more fear, is endemic to Australian culture. In rejecting US imperialism, we must also reject Australian liberalism/imperialism, which is our dominant political culture.
This by far the best and most thoughtful writing on this disturbing topic.
For those who agree that Australia’s alliance with the United States is to Australia’s detriment please consider making a submission to the People’s Inquiry into the “the costs and consequences of Australia’s involvement in US-led wars and the US-Alliance?”
https://independentpeacefulaustralia.com.au/
Modern echoes of “Pax Romana”, its wars and and its satellites…
I support all your conclusions, John. I hesitate to distract attention to two pieces of symbolism.
ScoMo’s ridiculous pronouncement from the cockpit of a RAAF F-35A that it is sovereignty. That is so unreal, so deliberately cynical, that I am still chilled to my core.
Trump’s mob attacking the Capitol and Members of Congress. Why was it undefended? The riots had been widely predicted for weeks. The assembly of the mob was arranged on social media. The rioters approached by bus. Yet security was not reinforced. I suggest the insurrection was allowed to proceed as a piece of Hollywood allowing authorities to maximise the subsequent outrage and the resultant power to suppress opposition in future. How chilling is that?
Another interpretation is the the US is a failed state. The country is similar to Wiemar Germany where the divisions in the state and ruling class eventually led to fascism after a series of failed insurrections and political violence. So follows the US. The collapse of the US empire is rapid and irreversible.
I think that now that Trump has been acquitted there is every bit of evidence to say that the US is finished, a failed state. If political parties become so divided and partisan, way beyond ethics, and that is what the people accept, then the country has lost any sense of decency. To think that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president demonstrates that rats have eaten out anything he ever stood for. Shame on them. It takes a lot of appalling decisions to turn good into evil (in the secular sense).
It makes it even more obvious that in Australia we are utter fools to follow them down such a pathological path.
The very last thing the Republican Party wants is Trump standing for another Term. So why did they use their numbers to acquit? Because they would rather deny Trump by using their own Party power than have him denied by the Congress. It is an exercise in maximising political party power.
The very last thing Scomo wants is any lessening of the power he has attained by his abuse of his terrorism legislation, his avoidance of jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, his denial of a Bill of Rights and the stroke of luck delivered to him by the C-19 epidemic. So his message to Australians is ‘aspire to no more influence than you now have. This is sovereignty. Be happy because it gets no better.’
We are stupid to follow America. We are stupid to follow our leaders.
Wonderful article John.
I am re reading Henry Kissingers “On China” published in 2011. One thing is hard to escape.- We are confronting a clash of two civilizations. The Chinese that has remained intact since the time of the Ancient Egyptians with the same language and writing and our Western Civilization. Western civilization we must admit is an aggressive civilization. Undoubtedly Chinese civilization will survive another four thousand years, but ours?
Sir, you have posed such a challenging question. Chinese civilisation endured because of its language and Confucianism. About 70 years ago, they embraced Communism and Mao tried to bury their past by destroying most of their cultural practices in favour of science and technology. Today, they have a rapacious appetite for Western technology, English and Christianity. In a way, they have become Westernised, ever so willingly, and are helping to preserve Western civilisation. Western civilisation has crept into all parts of the world and caused a lot of change. The Americans and some Europeans are even insisting that others are not democratic enough or changing fast enough to Western civilisation’s view of the world. Even in their physical world, the Chinese are not building more pagodas but Manhattan style sky scrapers. Westerners with Chinese eyes are getting more common in Australia.
I dont think we should confuse so called “Western” civilisation (whatever that is ) with modernity. The Chinese communists have brilliantly fused modernity (Marxism, science, technology ) with Chinese culture and intellectual tradition. The success of this achievement has the US elites in a state of panic and near hysteria. The wretched of the earth who populate most of the globe are seeing the so-called “Western” values failing and in disarray. Whilst in PRC socialism (modernity) with Chinese characteristics (Chinese culture) is powering ahead. The conclusion is obvious. In the Philippines the contrast is stark. Centuries of “Westerm” values and so called civilisation with the Spanish which looted the country of its mineral wealth, bequeathed the Philippines the Catholic Church and an exploding birth rate (the Philippines is the only country in Asia that imports rice) and the US century of “democratic values” which turned this staggeringly beautiful country into a brothel and a slaughter house with about a fifth of its people killed in an appalling genocide of occupation by the exceptional people and their ‘democratic” values. Kissinger who didnt see an Asian country he didnt want to bomb or subjugate no doubt neglects to include war crimes in the pantheon of Western “civilisation”.
As a Chinese, I want to tell you that the value of the West is still worth learning from China. As a Westerner, you set your sights on failure as a whole. As a person of different civilizations, I will focus on what is worth learning.
This attitude is a valuable lesson from our painful history.
No matter how brilliant a civilization, if it cannot draw nourishment from other civilizations, it will soon decline due to pride and complacency. From Rome to Byzantium, from Chang’an to Beijing, Chinese and Western history has repeated this simple truth for thousands of years.
Regarding the competition between China and the United States, how do Westerners view it. As for me, I am grateful. Because of the many things we have learned in the competition in the United States, it also motivates us to face our own shortcomings and urge us not to pretend to be solving problems.
More importantly, as Jesus said to everyone, “You must try to enter the narrow door.” When facing problems, because of the pressure from the United States, we must go through the narrow door. When facing difficulties, Difficult methods, but long-term problem solving and simple methods can only delay the outbreak of the problem, forcing us to choose the former.
Competing with the United States and learning from the West has made China a better China. Rather than a declining China or a Western China.
Chinese is a written language, but speaking is a weak aspect of Chinese. One of the criteria for judging a gentleman in ancient China is to be stunned in language, and to act swiftly, which is very different from the majestic debates of the ancient Romans. However, according to realistic criteria, ancient China and ancient Rome were both the greatest civilizations. Therefore, when understanding China, reliable information transmitted through language is extremely scarce, and even think that China is silent. Nevertheless, I still encourage my Western friends to learn about China as much as possible, because the future huge wealth opportunities and scientific achievements will be born in the East. To understand China. It is indispensable for an ambitious person. Similarly, I also hope that the West will become a better West in the process of learning from the East.
We have so much to learn from China.
” I still encourage my Western friends to learn about China as much as possible, because the future huge wealth opportunities and scientific achievements will be born in the East. To understand China. It is indispensable for an ambitious person. Similarly, I also hope that the West will become a better West in the process of learning from the East.”
I can’t agree more.
Paul, I wasn’t talking about the merits or demerits of Christianity. I just mentioned an observation that I made. I would not want to debate values because it could go on forever. I could be all wrong but I enjoy sparking off a debate that makes reading P&I very interesting to me at least. It makes one more careful about explaining what one means.
My fault mate. You were very clear. i went off on a tangent there.
The Chinese system of granting “extractions” of territories to keep foreign powers placated had run out of steam by the beginning of the 20Century. Obviously China now understands that to be safe she must have a military might to at least equal the West. To achieve that she also needed to first have economic power. China has done what had to do to be safe. In a way haven’t we forced China to become what it has?
Teow Loon, I don’t think Chinese people in China are keen on Westernisation. They don’t have a ‘rapacious appetite’ for it. What they have been keen on is Modernisation, which is a different thing. Technology is just science, neither Western nor Chinese. Many young Chinese people are keen on learning English but mainly as a useful tool for material progress.
As for Christianity, I agree that Chinese people are particularly susceptible (but again not a rapacious appetite) to missionary work on the part of Chinese Christians, or previously Western missionaries. (You could also argue that Westerners were also similarly susceptible to conversion by this Jewish/Middle Eastern import a little while back…). The government of China perceives an inherent threat if Christians in China becomes a major political force. No government in China will allow the white-anting of the essentials of Chinese civilization, which is what will happen if Christianity becomes a powerful force. As an ethnic Chinese person, I totally agree with the Chinese government on this point.
We have seen (and the Chinese government can see too) what 200 years of Christianisation has done to a big portion of the population of Hong Kong. Christian fanaticism to me, whether in Hong Kong or indeed Australia, is seriously bad for any society. Exhibit A is our Scotty and his bunch of religious fundamentalists!
Exhibit B is the Philippines. The Catholic Church ascendancy has fought birth control and the right of women to control their bodies. More than half of the pregnancies in the Philippines are unintentional and 90% of those pregnancies occur due to lack of access to contraception. As a consequence the Philippines has an exploding population, high infant mortality rate and a plague of child abusing priests. President Duterte introduced the first contraceptive program in the history of the Philippines and immediately got attacked by a Church orchestrated campaign as a mass murderer by the usual goons in the ABC and the real estate agents gazette in Sydney.
Hi, Man Lee. There is indeed some truth in what you say. However, systematic science came from the West underpinned by the Enlightenment from the 16th century. The idea central to it are the scientific method, the use of reason; and the monitoring and maintenance of progress or advancement. The system in the universities everywhere for awarding research degrees ensures that each piece of research serves to take knowledge a small step ahead – hence the central place of literature review in every research.
I am sorry I have not been very clear about what I meant by science. If anyone is interested in reading about Chinese science, I am pleased to recommend the books of Joseph Needham. I have read a couple of his books years ago. Today, there is an ongoing series started by him called Science and Civilisation in China.
Modernisation, one must admit, in the last 150 years is Westernisation. The origins of modern day civil engineering came from the West, modern medicine came from the West (although Chinese medicine has seen a recent revival and scientific research has been carried out to investigate their efficacy), computer science -with its Microsoft etc came from the West, flight came from the West. I wasn’t referring to algebra, the abacus or even the Arabic numbers which were variously said to have come from the Middle East, India or China. These are indispensable foundations of modern science ( imagine doing calculations using Roman numbers).
Whether the Chinese government frowns on Christianity or any other form of religion is immaterial. The Chinese people seem to have a huge appetite for it. This comes from an atheist. It is an observation which I make from people around me, especially relatives.
My thinking is not about the East versus the West. It is about humankind as a whole and giving credit where credit is due. In my world, no one is completely wrong or right. We are all only partly correct, sometimes more correct than wrong. One thing I learnt from my Western education is a tolerance for ambiguity.
You can make an observation of people or relatives around you, but you can hardly make a statement that Chinese people have a “rapacious appetite” for it. That is a huge statement that needs to be backed by facts.
And to be honest, I know you didn’t mean it, but it comes across as a very racist statement to make, with very negative connotations. Something that is not out of place with ‘Fu Manchu’.
There is a direct correlation between the number of missionary organisations and the growth of Christianity in any place. At last count, there were more than 600 Christian missionary groups (mostly American) in Malaysia (which I assume is where you come from). Call me a cynic, but there’s money to be made. You can see the same fantastic growth rates in South Korea, and even in Mongolia. Or Africa, for that matter. The key driver is the number of missionary people on the ground.
Today, there are probably significantly more Christians in China than the Wikipedia number of 67 million that you quoted. I agree it is growing, but it is still a minority.
Man Lee, I just visited Wikipedia which indicates that Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China with an average annual rate of 7%.
In 1949, there were 4 million Christians.
In 2010 there were 67 million Christians.
Of course Wikipedia is not a reliable site for research but it does provide quick and useful information.
As both Skilts and Man Lee have already alluded to, Westernisation is not Modernisation. China always refer its current process of Modernisation.
The claim that Chinese people have a rapacious appetite in Christianity is 100% plainly false. Religion (not superstition, a different concept) was phased out of the mainstream thinking a long time ago.
I find your post fascinating but still have a large tinge of Western based thinking as the starting point. There is a hint of inferiority complex at play here as you are equating Western culture with all the advances we have today. Do understand that one of the key killer cards of Eastern culture is absorbing all the good ideas of other cultures without prejudice.
What China has done is absorb the scientific method, and has applied this to everything including political governance while the West with its theological underpinnings is reverting back to anti-intelliectualism.
Also judging by your surname, I can tell you are a descendent of old China, a particularly vulnerable group to Westernisation due to the fall of Qing at that period which gave rise to a large group of intellectuals denouncing Eastern values and philosophy while praising the West.
Hi Kirashogan,
Please read my response to Man Lee. I am somewhat comforted by your observation of “inferiority complex”. I would be insulted if you say that I am suffering “superiority complex” Anyway, I also suspect that you are of the older generation from Malaysia or Singapore because the phrase “inferiority complex” is only ever commonly used in that region among the English educated Chinese and Indians.
Saying using scientific method is Westernisation is the equivalent of saying anyone who wants to learn swimming wants to become a fish.
You are also wrong on your deduction but I know I am 100% right about your background. The problem I see with a lot of your posts is you have a good academic understanding of China but seem to lack practical experience in China. Like someone who read the ins and outs of driving but never sat in a car.
I grew up in Beijing in the 80s and came to Australia in the 90s. I’ve witnessed the epic change China has gone through.
May I suggest you start with When China Rules the World by Martin Jacques to at least start in the right direction and spend some time in China after Covid is over.
Sir, there is no way that we can see eye to eye. If 4 to 67 million is not a huge increase, what is? 7% increase rate is more than the population growth of a country. I might have upset people by using the word “rapacious” but I have tried to explain by presenting evidence on modern systemic science, where to source Chinese science from a scholarly source and I have provided statistics to show the rate of increase in Christian population in China. The reason I say that we cannot see eye to eye is that I do not think in 100% terms that you have used twice. I have a tolerance for ambiguity while you think in absolute terms. You can’t insult me because I address differences with explanations and moderation. As reasonable people in Australia say, address the issue, not the person.
I have taken the lazy man’s option in my attempt to understand China, and kept an English Translation of Confucius’ Analects as a bed book for about 10 years, as well as reading English-language Chinese news on the internet every day. I have spent even more time trying to understand the West, which has led me to a position very much different from Western mainstream self-belief, held by many who are highly skilled in the English language.
The West has divided into two cultures, science and the lawyer stuff (which is rigid punitive tradition based on an unscientific concept of human nature). In the West, lawyers (trained in the court-room sophistry that wins rich clients’ squabbles) dominate administration. Western culture is thus doomed to ignorance and increasingly bitter squabbling.
China has cherry-picked science and socialism from the west, and hung onto Confucianism which is quite compatible with both of those. What I think is the Confucian administrative tradition most compatible with science is this: the superior man (the one others tend to respect and follow) is the wisely benevolent man who loves the people. That is equivalent to the key finding of behavioural science, that positive reinforcement leads to more effective control, and less unwanted side effects (on the controllers and controlled) than punishment. It should be remembered that all control produces counter-control, but the controller is the one with superior expertise. There is a huge gulf between Confucianism and science on the one side, and democratic theory (or should I say rhetoric?) on the other.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for engaging me in such an interesting conversation. Actually, I have been trying to understand Western culture in order to derive a comprehensive view of how different branches of its knowledge are integrated into a whole that one calls Western culture. The the dichotomy that you mention i.e. the sciences and the language dominated professions such as law or the humanities is artificial. What I realised from my background in the sciences and humanities is that that dichotomy is really bridged by the works of Western philosophers. They contributed to the basic understandings of what is science and mathematics and what constitute the essence of language. When I started reading the Western philosophers, I was utterly fascinated. There are some similarities between East and West, an example of which is that both Confucius and Aristotle advocate moderation which Confucius describe as walking the middle road and Aristotle call the Golden Mean.
That aside, I appreciate that the works of Western philosophers are woven into the the daily lives of the Western world eg. in law such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbs and even John Stuart Mills. Philosophers like Francis Bacon and Charles Darwin contributed immensely to foundational ideas in science; others like Ludwig Wittgenstein and Noam Chomsky contributed to ideas on language. I also like Existentialism and its most famous proponent Jean Paul Sarte. There are hordes of others that I like but I am constraint by time and often by limited intelligence. They will continue to fascinate me because I often find answers to daily problems by recalling their ideas. That being said, if there is a book that I would recommend anyone to read to find a major difference between Eastern and Western thinking it is a book called “The First Freedom: A History of Free Speech” by Robert Hargreaves published by Sutton 2002. That I see is the major difference between the East and the West. There has been no equivalent struggle for freedom of speech in the East.
Topo Biblioteca,
Teow Loon Ti
Everyone should read Darwin because he discovered the meaning of life. B. F. Skinner, the founder of behavioural science, took things further, in setting out how behaviour evolves during the lifetime of an individual animal, also by mutation and environmental selection. Evolution by environmental selection also applies to cultures. In “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” (1971,) Skinner set out why those foundations of the modern Western way of life are lethal cultural mutations. It is now obvious how right he was, and it is a great relief that China suffers much less from them. These days, when I use a search engine to find papers I need to read for my scientific reports, half the authors are Chinese. The torch of civilisation is now in good hands!
I agree with your idea that the West seems to be living too much off “rhetoric”. I also find a lot of explanation about what is happening around me from Darwin’s theory. And I almost forgot that I commented some time ago that Australia should have more scientists in Parliament, people like Barry Jones. My first exposure to Skinner was in the early 60s from my science teacher Chiam Si Tong, who later took up law and became the almost lone member of the opposition in the Singapore Parliament. His moderate and rational views, arguably from his science (chemistry) background even earned him the respect of Harry Lee. However, despite my various exposures to Skinner in my undergraduate days, I never actually read “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”.
This brings me to a point that I would like to have your opinion on. I said sometime ago that Chinese migrants to South East Asia observed that the first generation of migrants build the wealth; the second generation maintains it; and the third generation destroys or squanders it, almost reflecting the three major Hindu Gods Brahma (builder), Shiva (maintainer) and Vishnu (destroyer). This linked my thinking to two Asian leaders Lee Kuan Yew and Mao Zedong. I think they both sensed that triad factor. Lee kept the Singaporeans continuously engaged in productive activity by making them pay for everything. For that reason, they called his party PAP (People’s Action Party) Pay and Pay. The result was that if the people don’t work hard enough, they will never be able to maintain a good lifestyle. Mao on the other used a more destructive method. He believed that the people should be kept on their feet through contiguous revolution (arguable) – hence the Cultural Revolution. The point that I am making is that China may soon hold the torch of civilisation. How she maintains it without Xi Jinping, either by another equally able leader or by a group, is the interesting question.
There is also the questions of whether the law of unexpected outcomes will come around and disrupt things.
Yes, “How long will China last?” is a big question. It’s certain to go up and down. I get the impression the party had a close shave with corruption towards the end of the last presidency/premiership, and that tough action was taken by Xi’s faction. There is gratitude to Xi who probably took personal risks to crush it. Stoicism is an important part of leadership because it gives a leader the strength to resist corruption. In the long term, the party needs mechanisms to deal effectively with it. It may be OK for private citizens to enrich themselves, but it’s a no-no for officials.
By the way, you mention cars. Where does the first cars came from? Cars for the private owner, the Ford Model T, came from the first assembly line production in Detroit in 1908. Today, China is the biggest consumer of cars. Like I said earlier, we must give credit where credit is due. Not everyone is 100% right or 100% wrong as you seem to think. Give people the credit where it is due and criticise them by all means when they commit wrong doings. The “them” and “us” attitude is not good for anyone. Only children will say, “My father is taller than your father” to each other.
I can see you are getting a bit worked up here, I must have struck a nerve. The point was never whether the scientific method contributed to the huge leap in quality of life for mankind, the point is China is not Westernising, modernisation is not Westernisation. Just look at Japan, a still feudal society but ultra modern.
This is the same mistake Western scholars made in the 90s when they thought when China opens up her economy, she will be come a liberal democracy one day. 30 years on, we know it’s wrong but you still believe in this theory.
You remind me of Gu HongMing’s once famous quote. “The ponytail on my head is physical, but the ponytail in your heart is intangible”.
You have touched on an interesting point. People who identify themselves as Chinese in Australia are as diverse as they can be. To me, people who are born here and went through the education are necessarily more Australian than they are Chinese.
However there are actually not a small number from abroad who are fans of, wait for it, Eric Abetz and Cardinal Pell, and of course, Donald Trump.
Eric Abetz was praised by some of these Chinese Australians for telling all Chinese Australians that we had to publicly condemn the Chinese Communist Party. When Cardinal Pell went through his trial in Melbourne, he had a band of elderly Chinese Australians eagerly and publicly showing support. Hard to explain, but perhaps, like you say, they are vulnerable to Westernisation, or Christianisation. But not just at the end of the Qing dynasty; it persists till today. There’s actually a real Australian electoral consequence to this. There are at least about 3 or 4 Parliamentary seats where these people have effectively won it for the LNP! For us on the progressive side, we say ‘Houston, we have a problem!’.
When Sun Yat-sen, the father of the Chinese Revolution (1911) was young, he went around smashing Chinese temples. Later he received a Christian Western education in Hawaii, and also in Hong Kong. Chiang Kai Shek also converted to Christianity at the instigation of his wife. If these Chinese Republicans had won in 1949 instead of Mao, China today would probably be something similar to the Philippines (see Skilts’ Exhibit B!).
I must have struck a nerve with Mr Ti as he is doing multiple replies to my post. He is usually pretty calm.
The views of Chinese from different time period is an absolutely fascinating topic, due to China’s rapid change in the last 200 years from a great power, to century of humiliation, back to rejuvenation.
Before the first Opium war, Chinese generally had confidence in it’s culture and traditions, but that generation has died off a long time ago. Ever since the century of humiliation and second Opium war which China got soundly beaten, a lot of people lost faith in the Chinese values system all together and began to wholesale sing praise to the West. This continued right up until 1978 when China embarked on its opening up.
In general, the further you go back from 1978, the more inferiority complex you get. Mr Ti firmly belongs in the major inferiority complex camp (he still thinks like a sick man of Asia) as his grandparents probably fled Qing. I mean that’s totally reasonable, old China was terrible. West was best.
By the time you get to the people born in the 2000s, they don’t have this anymore as the China they are born in seems to be pretty good and better than the West in some aspects. I dusted my year 7 Heinemann Atlas textbook, published in 1992, China’s per capita GDP was $370pp! Now it’s $10,000. The change is absolutely mind boggling.
The joke is post 1978, generation gap is typically every 3 years instead of 20.
China is now playing the same game, it is 100% invested in improving itself to the point where the Western values can be smashed. The new generation of Chinese are very confident and confident in the government and their future.
Mr T’s understanding of China seems to have stopped at a bunch of books written by a bunch of Anglos and some historical facts. You can tell he has very little experience in the real China, his understanding is mostly academic from a Western lens. I don’t know if he is even proficient at Chinese.
He touts that Christianity numbers are increasing, a massive 4.7% of population if we take Wikipedia numbers but oblivious to the Han-fu, traditional Chinese clothing movement, a sign of cultural confidence.
I hope Mr Ti, post Covid can go stay in China for a while to really understand, observe with his own eyes, not through 2nd hand information, what China is really like today.
I think the most important cultural link is the language. If you are proficient at Chinese, then you are more likely to be Chinese in your identity and thinking. If you lose the language, you are pretty screwed.
I think the culture link to China is extremely important. A strong China is good to all Chinese diaspora across the globe. What you don’t want is a WWII Jewish situation. Sure the Jews were rich, but they were practically stateless and lamb to the slaughterhouse.
The Chiang Kai She’s Christianity thing I think is more a political ploy to get US support rather than him really believing in it. One of the flaws of Chiang, always relying on others while ignoring its own impoverished people for grass root support.
I am with you on this. I am loyal to Australia, but I am also a strong advocate of a successful China (and why not, it is much better than violent imperial America!), and hence a diaspora which is confident of their heritage.
And I agree that language is key, whether it is Mandarin or Cantonese, etc.; once you lose the language, you lose the connection, and true empathy for Chinese civilization. It’s like expecting an Chinese Indonesian who only knows Indonesian to relate to the rich history of China. Impossible!
Another factor that has played a major role in the context of the diaspora is the British colonial influence in places like Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. In all 3 places, at different times, Chinese as a language or culture was relegated to an inferior status. Including, by his deeds, the late Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. Today in Singapore, English is replacing Chinese as the language spoken at home by Singaporeans. It’s a subjective thing but it’s surely a high price to pay when you lose your ancestral heritage.
(And by the way, I can also bet my bottom dollar that Singapore would fight on the side of the Americans should there be a big fight in Asia. It currently not only hosts US military ships, but provides crucial intelligence to the 5-Eyes, like a poor cousin who is not quite accepted to the inner Anglo chamber, but is very useful nonetheless).
The colonial effect on some segments of Hong Kong society is deep, and will take another 2 generations to ‘de-colonise’. The interesting thing about many Chinese Malaysians and Singaporeans is that they arrogate to themselves as being experts in Chinese culture or civilization when their knowledge is at best superficial, and at worst, seeing China through Western/colonial lens. And the sad thing is that they are not aware of it.
**** Apologies to the Aussies here – we have gone totally off topic ****
Correct, the HK riots has a lot to do with inferiority complex. A problem caused by the British system but blamed on China even though the very reason why HK is relevant at all is because of China.
It will take another generation at least to wash it out of the system. However, collapse of Western values would initially be gradual (like now) but at some point, it will completely crumple very quickly as China reaches critical mass.
The West knows this which is why it is starting to ban CGTN etc. in the name of “free speech” no doubt lol.
Well said John.
I would like to see your views on what we should do about/with the UN. How should we modify WHO and other UN agencies (if this is desirable)?