Labor has ever been central to issues of production. Indeed, Marxists assert that it is the primary factor of production. Labor comes from the demographic stock, population. Recently, social scientists have again resurrected the specter of continued, if not worsening, prospects of poverty in the Philippines, in spite of projected growth of the economy. Their contention is that demographic growth will serve as stumbling block to Philippine development. Students of Economic Planning, let me hear your views on the matter. Students of Sociology of Socio-Political Change, likewise. Please consider this as a sort of written examination. Your posts should reflect your theoretical position, as well as your empirical observations. Citations are most welcome. Due date for your posting is 5 p.m. on September 20, 2008.
Comments
Joseph Nye’s worries make sense. A new Pew survey asked Americans which nation poses the greatest threat to U.S. security, then compared the answers to those given in the past three years. The results show sharp shifts in the chief targets of concern: 16 Percentage who list China as the top threat, up from 14% (No.4) in 2007. Now No.2 again, as it was in 2006 and 2005. (Iran 21%; Russia 14%; North Korea 6%. Times, Oct 6, 2008). Therefore, it is time for the US to pay more attention to the balance of soft power in Asia.
2. Can the U.S. win the Iraq war with its soft power? A sharp contrast to China’s 2008 Olympic Games.
Besides Nobel laureate Gao Xingjian, Yao Ming, and the film “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (this film should be labeled as Taiwan’s soft power), the best demonstration of China’s soft power in this decade was the 2008 Olympic Games. Most sources estimated that approximately $40 billion had been spent on the Games, which would make it the most expensive Olympic Games by a wide margin. However, according to a 2008 book “The Three Trillion Dollar War” by two Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, the war in Iraq is costing the U.S. $12 billion a month.( U.S. Confirmed Deaths are 4326 so far.)
40 billion is only 3.33 months of the US cost on the Iraq war, but which has won the world’s recognition of China as a civilized global super (soft) power, and for the Chinese government, the Olympic events, as well as the medals won by Chinese athletes, were a great source of national pride.
So, success depends on whose army wins, or on whose story wins?
3. Does Beijing consensus help raise China’s soft power?
According to Joseph Nye’s definition of soft power, the so called Beijing consensus is actually a form of soft power. Although there remained many arguments on this new consensus, the Chinese scholars thought that Beijing consensus is a process instead of result, a particular concept instead of a certain model. It surely helps the rise of China’s soft power and provides a valuable reference of development to developing countries. But why has an authoritarian government, with so many defects as Joseph Nye criticized, become more popular? My explanation is that the Chinese government and scholars are so confident on the Chinese political system—the socialist system. “As far as China is concerned, our Socialist system is always affirmed as a system of superiority. The question is to give full scope to its inherent superiority.” (The “Washington Consensus” and “Beijing Consensus” Globalization, China Watch, June 18, 2005)
4. Soft power has become the major trend in global politics but soft power is not the solution to all problems. Efforts to use soft power got nowhere in attracting the terrorists away from its support for violence, but other goals such as the promotion of democracy, human rights, values of different culture and civilizations are better achieved by soft power. With the better mutual understanding among different peoples, we hope that the clash of civilizations will not happen again. China, as a major power in the world, has the responsibility to help achieve this goal.
Alfredo S Sureta jr. M.A.
Political Science department
University of East Manila.
Despite the growing rise of both Chinese affluence at home and influence abroad both good for its citizens and the world. The current structural limitations of China’s international policy called Peaceful rise and domestic policy entitled harmonious society. Will prevent it from actually succeeding, the reason for this assumption are as follows. First, the program peaceful rise rest on the assumption that other nations will be willing to accommodate China’s emergence as a world power without paying for the cost of this rise. A very concrete example is the thirst of China for natural resources. Its continuing support of regimes that are considered to be outcast by the international community will tarnish and eventually affect its soft power image to the rest of the international community. The rest of Asia will find it hard to admire its regime when it continually props up the government of Sudan that oppresses millions of its own citizen, when a lot of Asian countries contained similarly oppressed minorities. Perhaps Burma and North Korea will applaud it, but for the rest of Asia and the world will find it hard to be attracted to the values promoted by its peaceful rise when the price of that price is the continued indirect oppression of millions. As pointed out by Prof. Nye, this resembles western imperialism rather than some form of new Eastern consensus. Another area were this soft power will be difficult to sustain is its domestic policy. Known as harmonious society, the riots at Tibet, massacres of the Uighur’s at Urumqi in the Xinjiang provinces all shows the fragile façade that is being shown by the Chinese authorities during the seemingly stable Olympics. The absence of response mechanisms that is present in other less harmonious society like democratic states prevents the Chinese authorities from adjusting to such uprisings. And instead it brutally crushes any opposition, after Tiananmen not a lot has change in Chinese government. Despite the pretentions of the Chinese authorities to project its image abroad as an alternative to Washington consensus, we must remember that the consensus it tries to project as an alternative is founded on cheap labor worth at least 2 dollars a day without any social safety net, citizens that don’t have freedom, foreign policy that is grounded on cold acquisition of resources regardless of the social cost. Soft power to be truly effective is dependent on its ability to attract, influence and make its values attractive to be worthy of emulation by other nations. Resulting in an increase of influence on the nation being emulated, as pointed by Prof. Nye it’s important not to ignore the gains made by China emerging as new world power. However we should also not ignore the human cost of this peaceful that was a result of brutal hard power against their own countrymen.
China has opened its doors in so many multicultural aspects as Nye reports in his article. Also Nye, cites that China is not yet that influencial in the "soft power" arena, yet it may well be noted to be on the path to achieve greater influence. OIne which the United States should also give great consideration.
This is new angle that I have seen for a state, since most of my readings seem to move towards strong power for the state. Yet this perspective from Nye, shows that there is another important power available for the state. Which is usefull in the international arena as well as locally.
On the comparison with the united States, Nye observes that China is still far from the United States not just in terms of Soft Power but also in terms of economic and military power. To this he cited several aspects such as corruption, democracy, and inequality. Given these considerations, fact is China has already taken steps to make use of the option of using soft power.
I would like to integrate with this what i have learned in planning my report in Political Dynamics of PROC and ROC. Dr. Tak-Wing Ngo has pointed out the Chinese tendency for "Stone Groping". This as Dr. Tak-Wing Ngo describes is a way of trying out whatever resource or option is available to achieve their goals. And one of these options involved reform. Hence however that China may have for centuries opten for the use of strong power. The study of history, specially of their contemporary events, show a path leading towards new options for power. As such Dr. Tak-Wing Ngo even pointed out a tendency for power sharing for the sake of ensuring political support. If China could do such locally. Then China could also take an option of soft power internationally.
The article was informative and interesting. It was informative in the way it contrasted US from China though he leaned towards the US in the end, interestingly, it effectively almost feigned to have been written by an impartial American.
It would be enlightening if Mr. Nye could have written the article by finding the reason first why the United States is not included in the First East Asian Summit rather than imply a bloated apprehension. We can even presuppose that the absence of the US in the said summit is because the US, in the first place is geographically not even from Asia. The Summit must have invited the East Asian countries and the neighbouring countries nearby.
Worse, he presupposed that the said Summit is the commencement of China’s long-term ambition to build a new regional power structure known as the East Asian Community minus Washington. It is as if he is implying that United States should be part of the said Regional Structure even if US is not even regionally located nearby. Analogically speaking, it is like he is forcing US participation to regional blocks like ASEAN, EU or BIMP-EAGA. Also, he was not even clear in showing that he understood the purpose of the said Summit. For all we know, it could be economic, educational, or even cultural and not necessarily the “political maliciousness” he must have in mind. Mr. Nye could just simply be reminded that it is East Asian Community and the US geographically speaking does not belong to it. He went overboard with his analysis on this part.
Nevertheless, I agree with him that America is still better off than that China even if this article was written, more or less, four years ago. Despite what America must have gone through recently, China is still going behind its trail and not even as a far second. For one, the economy of America maybe catching cold in today’s times, but it does not mean China is now doing better than America. Even if China is doing better, it does not mean also that it is then the fall or the decline of US. Two, China still cannot match America’s military might. The latter even remains unmatchable for the record.
Furthermore, Mr. Nye’s comparison to both countries soft power is fascinating me. To my analysis, China’s soft power is still in the run while that of America has been in the finish line already. The former is still in the process of influencing; America has influenced the system already. China is yet to make a haven in Asia, but America has long established havens all over the world including China itself. A simple test in the degree of influence could even be attested by just the influence of Britney Spears’ music to the world including China.
In addition to, Mr. Nye is making a problem in the situation when there should be no problem. The development of China to greatness is not something that America should be worried of. It could even be complementary than threat. These two countries are not rivals but allies. They are not substances that are insoluble for they can coexist in cooperation and harmony. The rise of one is not necessarily the fall of the other or vice versa. If contrary happens, America will not be that relaxed on top to be convenient with its prime position. A super power like America is two to three steps ahead of its friends and more steps ahead of its potential enemies.
Finally, one distinguishing factor of China’s development and rise to stardom is its diplomacy. It started to find allies, but I don’t think she is gathering friends to muster them to be America’s enemies. In fact, for China to become even greater is for her to be America’s optimal ally.
Also some analysts noted that there is a core difference between China’s and America’s soft power strategies. The US approach emphasized on democracy and related objectives that promotes US security interests while China pursue a less intrusive policy which earns world appreciation because it appears respectful of national sovereignty.
I believed that the first view underlies the real intention of China in its aggressive projection of soft state. After all, China is China which means that it sticks to its fundamental ideology of socialism. My view is substantiated by the following pronouncements from two prominent Chinese leaders.
According to Central Party School Professor Zhao Yao, the China model is worth maximum exposure because “it has saved the world socialist movement.” “Through the reform and open door policy of China, new vistas have been opened up for socialism,” Zhao noted (Beijing Daily, November 18, 2008; Xinhua News Agency, December 28, 2008). In a speech late last year summarizing the achievement of 30 years of reform, which underpins the apparent virility of the country’s economy and culture, President Hu took an uncompromising stance while underscoring the imperative of cleaving to Marxist orthodoxy. The supremo vowed that the CCP would uphold the “Four Cardinal Principles” of stern party control and “democratic proletarian dictatorship.” Hu said that the CCP would do whatever it takes to “boost its ability to guard against changes [to a non-socialist system] and to withstand risks” such as socio-political instability. And he delivered a stern warning to liberal cadres who favor a faster pace of political reform as well as the adoption of “universal values” such as elections and rule of law. Hu warned that the leadership “will never take the deviant path of changing the flag and standard [of the party]” (People’s Daily, December 19, 2008).
Likewise, China has a long history of failing to manifests the ‘universal values’ such as democracy, liberty and human rights. The Chinese government continues to strictly control journalists, many of them are still in prison. Instances, were cited where Chinese leaders—and censors—have failed to demonstrate openness, tolerance or inclusiveness. The image that China wants to project is at odds with actual events of harassment and incarceration in its country. Obviously, China’s hegemony is real.
Analysts are divided between two views on the rise of China’s soft state. The first view asserts that China’s accommodating posture implies that it is creating its own sphere of influence at the expense of the United States. The second view claims that China’s goal is simply focused on economic growth and social stability in the region and argues that on balance, China’s growing economic influence of the past decade has been beneficial to the region and not detrimental to U.S. interests.
Also some analysts noted that there is a core difference between China’s and America’s soft power strategies. The US approach emphasized on democracy and related objectives that promotes US security interests while China pursue a less intrusive policy which earns world appreciation because it appears respectful of national sovereignty.
I believed that the first view underlies the real intention of China in its aggressive projection of soft state. After all, China is China which means that it sticks to its fundamental ideology of socialism. My view is substantiated by the following pronouncements from two prominent Chinese leaders.
According to Central Party School Professor Zhao Yao, the China model is worth maximum exposure because “it has saved the world socialist movement.” “Through the reform and open door policy of China, new vistas have been opened up for socialism,” Zhao noted (Beijing Daily, November 18, 2008; Xinhua News Agency, December 28, 2008). In a speech late last year summarizing the achievement of 30 years of reform, which underpins the apparent virility of the country’s economy and culture, President Hu took an uncompromising stance while underscoring the imperative of cleaving to Marxist orthodoxy. The supremo vowed that the CCP would uphold the “Four Cardinal Principles” of stern party control and “democratic proletarian dictatorship.” Hu said that the CCP would do whatever it takes to “boost its ability to guard against changes [to a non-socialist system] and to withstand risks” such as socio-political instability. And he delivered a stern warning to liberal cadres who favor a faster pace of political reform as well as the adoption of “universal values” such as elections and rule of law. Hu warned that the leadership “will never take the deviant path of changing the flag and standard [of the party]” (People’s Daily, December 19, 2008).
Likewise, China has a long history of failing to manifests the ‘universal values’ such as democracy, liberty and human rights. The Chinese government continues to strictly control journalists, many of them are still in prison. Instances, were cited where Chinese leaders—and censors—have failed to demonstrate openness, tolerance or inclusiveness. The image that China wants to project is at odds with actual events of harassment and incarceration in its country.
It was Geopolitical analysis. While US apparently have a clear presence all over the world, it is inappropriate and unlikely that in summits and organization of states that are geographically based, US has to be named or included. For example, one can verily argue that US has strong influence to South East Asian Nations. However, it would sound even unintelligible that in ASEAN summit, she will be invited or become a member. Juxtapose that to a geograpical set up for East Asian Countries led by China. Again, I was just saying that Mr. Nye could have missed the geopolitical analysis why Washington is not part of that and he goes on to over-rate or could even analyze maliciously China's good gestures.
What I'm saying is that for all we know it is a political geographically missed-analysis on his part and it seemed that your analysis is on the same premise. I have seen the cup half-full and you both said it is half-empty. It is optimism over pessimism.
China is geographically situated in East Asia where she has all the right to be and geogpraphically confirms no right for the US.
As to the one-sided thing...it takes more than the phrase "I think" for you to defend his political thoughts. What you thought on what he thought cannot go any further on what I thought on his ideas. That is why, it is a comment. Thanks, for taking the time to read my comments though. Good job!
Hegemony whether regional or otherwise is still hegemony. Who knows, and who could tell what is in the offing for China? Besides, it is just an apprehension of a pending reality. Is there really no cause for alarm, yet? You may call it woman's intuition.
alma