In today’s blog post, I am going to quote both Edward Snowden and Donald Trump in relation to China, and it’s going to make sense.
This is the first installment of “Critical” Reading – a biweekly post in which I analyze and critique an article, a movie, an Internet comment, or something Donald Trump said.
If you remember from the first Republican debate this year:
Donald Trump stated, “This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico. Both in trade and at the border.” Putting aside Donald Trump’s clear obsession with China, his possible waning relevance on the national stage (time will tell, but that 60 minutes interview was a disaster), and his consistent egotistical and ignorant rhetoric (at least it’s consistent?), Trump’s statement echoes a not-unheard of American belief that China is somehow “winning” or beating us at the world stage.
I get it. Before I went to China, I routinely joked that I was studying the language in order to make sure I was one of the preferred servants when they came and took over America. However, after living in Beijing for nine months and studying everything I could on the country, I no longer make that joke.
That’s not to deny that China is an immense world power whose actions are felt around the globe. But take over the United States? The Chinese Communist Party is still trying to manage governing its own country in the Internet age.
To say that China would take over the United States also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how China operates. What is the most famous Chinese landmark? Yes, a Great big Wall. It’s the perfect symbol. They built a wall to keep invaders out and that inward-looking mindset has persisted over the centuries. The Chinese title of the Korean War follows: the “War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea.” Notice how they ordered that: U.S. Aggression comes first; aid to Korea is second. The U.S. just titled it the “Korean War.” Not the “War to Resist Communism and Aid Korea.” Though we definitely could have (War on Terrorism, anyone?).
Even if we don’t all agree with the concept, the United States considers itself a policing force in the world. When we remove our Western bias, we might conclude that China is mainly concerned with protecting itself – whether it’s building bases in the South China Sea, stifling unrest in the ethnically divergent regions of Tibet and Xinjiang, or continuing to prop up North Korea (literally a fascination of my Chinese friends – they wondered, “Why does the Chinese government act like North Korea’s big brother?” The answer: Two words, well, actually three – South Korean democracy. Yeah, geopolitics is sexy).
In a recent conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Edward Snowden stated that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, “There’s been sort of a vacuum of adversaries. Nobody can really challenge the United States in the way that it happened back [in the Cold War].”
This reminded me of a conversation I had with one of my Chinese friends (whom liked to engage frequently in intellectual discussion over a $2 meal in the Chinese university cafeteria). She said she read the New York Times and was convinced that the U.S. liked to “imagine enemies where there are none.” To her and all my other Chinese friends, the idea that China could “beat” the U.S. was laughable.
Why? Pollution, corruption, lack of freedom, free speech, and innovation to name a few. China is fascinating and amazing and powerful, but until the country loosens its stifling structure, the U.S. will always outperform it. Americans are disgusted by corruption in their government (particularly when billionaires can write blank checks to political campaigns and that’s somehow legal), but in the span of a decade, Chinese government officials spent four times the amount of the Beijing Olympics on dining alone – on the government’s tab. Additionally, the Chinese bureaucracy is inflated – there are five levels of government and an insane amount of Chinese government officials (82 million in 2011).
They say everyone in China looks up; that’s where the power is. You can’t succeed in business without having connections within the government. While I was studying at the university, I learned that one of the restaurants outside the campus became so successful that a party official seized ownership of it. If you don’t have powerful enough connections in China, that shit will happen to you. The connection between government and business is so fused that those in the Politburo (the 25 highest ranking Chinese officials) have a wealth ratio with the poorest of China that puts the U.S. Congress to shame.
Imagine if that happened to a business owner in the U.S. Right? You can’t. Also imagine a world where you couldn’t go online and bash the hell out of Obama. Anyone who called Obama a Muslim (like that’s a bad thing anyway, ugh) would be taken from their homes and imprisoned, God Knows Where. This stuff happens in China and no one is allowed to talk about it.
When it comes to freedom, America has its definite hang-ups (NSA, the Patriot Act, et. all). But for the most part, what we have better than others is the opportunity to innovate. China is great at copying existing technology and selling it for a cheaper price (note the hundreds of “Apple” stores in China but only 20 currently listed on the official Apple website), but don’t look to them to develop cutting-edge technology. I remember transcribing a New York Times interview in which director James Cameron (Avatar) encouraged Chinese people to improve IMAX technology. Nice thought, but the Chinese system has no interest in teaching its students how to think outside the box – it’s about looking up, remember? And even if you came up with a successful invention and/or business, how long would it take for a Chinese official to come steal it away from you?
So can we just put to rest this whole, “China is beating us” thing? Do we really need to imagine adversaries where there are none? Is that the only motivation we have to do better?
Well, according to the Cold War Space Race, yes. But dangnabit America – I believe we can do better.
