Without Adopting Western Institutions, China Will Collapse
I’m really getting tired of these arguments. Since when was it proven that Western-style democracy is necessary for a sound economy? One might argue that rule of law, transparency and so on might ensure a stronger, durable economy, but saying that but for those things, a given economy will surely collapse?
That just sounds like wishful thinking from someone who doesn’t care for China’s current political structure.
Are you aware of a state that is not a democracy but has rule of law?
Better question: does a developed economy require complete rule of law, and what does that mean? How close do you have to get before there is adequate trust in property rights, etc.?
I agree. I mean, Japan and South Korea have mixed records with adopting “Western institutions” but have still produced dynamic economies. West is west and east is east!
Stan.
I am reading a book by WB economist called “White Man’s Burden” and it is basically a book on how the West (and its institutions) are historically really bad at reforms outside their own borders.
That in pushing political agendas, they rarely judge the situation right, or have the research that would support a smart position when the shit hits the fan.
… however, that being said. If there is one concept that I believe China will eventually be forced to come to grips with it is “accountability”. The western models have largely been build to hold people accountable, where the Chinese system has not… and I see that as being something that will be the big test of the systems here… Does that mean that China will have to build the exact systems that we have in the US? No, but it does mean that there are lessons of our system that can be learned and incorporated locally at the national, regional, and local levels…
R
Sure. Accountability is a key aspect of the rule of law. Corruption, insider trading, etc. have not exactly helped.
Not to engage in moral relativism, but it is interesting that this week, Dick Cheney pretty much admitted to being a war criminal. No accountability there. Kind of erodes the U.S.’s ability to maintain the high ground on that issue.
@ James
Japan does not have a functioning economy
If you take the U.S. as the premier “Western” country with Western institutions such things as purported rule of law [poor people in the U.S. get law but little justice], representative elections [bribe-funded], a legislature [lobbyist funded], some form of capitalism, it is hardly a model that I would choose to follow at this moment in history since the U.S. is hollowing itself out having been at war with some smaller weaker country most of the time for the last 50 years and usually losing. It’s public media is saturated with “soft porn” advertising and its loudest citizens are more concerned with professional sports than the quality of public schools. This is beginning to be a rant so I’ll stop now. But the U.S. model [based originally upon disposession of the indigenous from their resources and slavery] if discussed honestly, isn’t a very sound model. It has been propped up by wars [War on Mexico, War on Spain etc] and asset stripping. It is unsustainable. And has been made unsustainable by, among other factors, what it calls democracy.
I’m no so pessimistic. A lot could be accomplished in the U.S. with some solid campaign finance reform. Not that we’re going to get any in the near future . . . OK, I am pessimistic.
Stan,
It erodes the US.s ability to maintain a high ground on…war crimes…maybe. But how does that resolve the rule of law question in regards to contracts and property? Its the little things that make the economy function.
James,
Sure, so out of the whole developing world 3 countries managed to civilize themselves. Out of how many? And quite frankly, how is Japan doing now? Its culture of corruption has paralyzed decision making and has led to a 20 year stagnation…and now they face a population time bomb.
If I was having a discussion about property law with a Chinese lawyer, then yes, the war crimes issue wouldn’t apply. On the other hand, when you talk about bilateral rhetoric, there is no logical consistency. Each side will use whatever they can to push back, and the war crimes issue is a point of vulnerability.
I would appreciate it if you could spell out exactly why you think Cheney “pretty much admitted to being a war criminal”.
In the most simple terms:
1. Waterboarding is a form of torture. This is pretty much recognized internationally and historically.
2. Torture of prisoners is a war crime.
3. The Bush administration waterboarded.
4. Cheney admitted last weekend that he, at a senior policy making position in the administration, was a “big supporter” of the waterboarding policy.
It’s all rather straightforward. The fact that the U.S. media doesn’t care about this, much less the U.S. government, says a lot. As a lawyer and someone who is constantly discussing “Rule of Law” issues with Chinese colleagues, this state of affairs (i.e. politics is more important than rule of law) really disturbs me.
Interesting article on rule of law in general, corruption in particular: http://www.smh.com.au/world/children-of-the-revolution-20100212-nxjh.html
Stan,
Even in relative terms, I think it takes a lot for you to say to me with a straight face that America is on the same level as China re rule of law.
Didn’t say that, wouldn’t make that argument. The point is that there has been an erosion over the past few years in the ability of the U.S. to make the “Rule of Law” argument from the moral high ground. If you like, the U.S. still occupies the high ground, but it is lower on the hill.
In practical terms, whenever the U.S. now tries to moralize, the other side can dredge up stuff like Iraq, torture, etc. as a counterpoint. Makes the argument that much more difficult.
The contention, then, would be over your first premise.
Is waterboarding considered torture in the US? Is there a statute somewhere in the US that says it definitely is?
I thought it was an “enhanced interrogation technique”.
“Torture” can be pretty subjective.
I could go find the legal cites, but honestly, I don’t hear anyone arguing that waterboarding is legal because it isn’t torture. Rather the arguments made by John Yoo and other lawyers was that notwithstanding the specific action (generally), the president has very wide latitude in this area under his power as the Commander in Chief. This is a thin argument though that is not really supported by the legal community. There is widespread agreement that waterboarding is torture under the Geneva Conventions (and other law, sorry I have not looked this up) and that there is no legal excuse under war powers.
Stan,
What-about-ism has been a fine tradition since the beginning of the cold war:
here is the soviet version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Poster35.jpg
from top right to top left: Individual freedom [represented by repression against blacks], freedom to gather and demonstrate [represented by police putting down a strike], freedom of thought is represented by a judge convincing a communist and freedom of speech is shown by William Heart spreading lies.
The point is, when in battle against third world tyrants and their running dog apologists, Americans who support the rule of law had to always deal the reality that America is not perfect and far from it. The other side ALWAYS has to bring up the argument that America is imperfect because it immediately deflects from their own legal barbarism. Because the other side “our asian values are different” is quite frankly indefensible
Sure, but torturing people is not helping the image of America abroad. Also, on the list of “America isn’t perfect” items, that’s a fairly big one, particularly since it was sanctioned by the chief executive. During the Jim Crow days, Americans never have to defend it as national policy.
I think you are being disingenuous here Stan. Jim Crow = violation of rights of millions of US citizens. Torture = violation of rights of thousands of foreigners.
Significant difference. But maybe reasonable minds can disagree. But I still think that US tortures therefore rule of law is bad is a fallacious argument.
I might be wrong, but I’m not being disingenuous. I really believe this stuff.
There is no difference here legally between foreigners and American citizens, nor should there be. Remember why nations sign the Geneva Conventions. Is it OK for the U.S. to torture, but it is unacceptable for “the bad guys” to do it to American soldiers? That’s completely inconsistent.
One more time: I’m not saying that because the U.S. tortures it does not have a strong rule of law tradition. I am saying that torture erodes that tradition to some degree and makes it much more difficult for us expats to persuade others from an American perspective that rule of law is a worthy goal without coming off as a hypocrite who doesn’t practice what he preaches.
I also haven’t even mentioned the Iraq War! That did serious damage to the American reputation as well regarding international law.