RSS

In another round of Harvard University's CES Berlin Dialogues, the recent economic rise of China and India was further examined by a line-up of panelists engaged in the debate on the "new ‘New World Order'". Setting the event's overall tone, Professor Yu Bin, a Senior Fellow at the Shanghai Institute of American Studies, accused the West of harboring only anxiety, alarm, and animosity with respect to the rise of non-Western nations. According to Yu, it is not the intention of Asian countries to overthrow the current world order, but rather to become fully integrated members, with hopes to duplicate the wealth enjoyed by those few situated on both sides of the Atlantic.

Referencing charts that compare the chronological order and duration of European and Asian wars, Yu argued that China and India's rise to power has been the most peaceful since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Therefore, on a security basis, why should the West fear the rise of Asian, albeit undemocratic, nations? After all, it is the current world of democracies that Yu named the "white nations", which also gave birth to the Crusades, genocides and the two "great European civil wars."

Assailing the general assumption that Europe will be irrelevant in building a new world order in which Asian countries play a critical role, the Washington Bureau Chief for Die Zeit, Martin Klingst, argued that Europe will remain quintessential for nations such as China and India, serving as an example for democratic, regional integration. As a critique of Yu, Klingst maintained that a serious challenge for China's ascension to the international order would be its own altercation with a one-party system. I could not agree more fully.

In stark contrast to Yu's somewhat demagogic positioning of China in its historical and current context, Sujit Dutta of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, offered a critical, fact-oriented assessment regarding the conditions and challenges facing India's increasing global role. Confronting a weak infrastructure, overpopulation, and its destabilizing relations with conterminous Islamic populations, India's cooperation with the international community is paramount to its future success.

Considering that India is much more self-sufficient than China- given its domestic, consumption-based production economy and largely vegetarian population- I found it interesting that he was more adamant than Yu on binding itself to a world order based on democratic institutions and human rights. In fact, although India could more comfortably pursue a policy of isolation than China, Dutta named as one of India's formidable strengths its ability to promote a pluralist, integrative society that sets an example to the tumultuous region surrounding its borders.

Regarding bilateral relations between China and India, Yu ended a trite recognition of India's existence as a powerful, ancient Asian culture with a "salute to India!!"; a comment that reminded me more of a black and white film shown in history class than of a respectful acknowledgement of a nation's quintessential neighbor.

So why cannot China do anything right? In his soft-spoken eloquence, Yu almost had the audience laughing by listing the paradoxes of China's recent transgressions; overpopulating and the one-child policy; protectionism and flooding Western markets with cheap products; reluctance to industrialize and crimes against the environment. In all fairness, he had a point, it seems as though China is always disappointing us.

I think, however, Yu has missed the point; a point on which Klingst pinned the donkey's tail; democracy. Ascending to a global order and a global market is creating wealth in China. As this wealth slowly disperses into more hands, more people will request the right to determine its use. This necessitates a society governed by the rule of law, which we now know (thanks to all the lessons of our bloody "civil wars") requires a democratic government, where multiple political parties are able to represent the pluralistic interests of its constituents. It seems like China is accelerating in this market-oriented, thereby democracy-necessitating direction. Perhaps Yu should go back and reread his history of the West, at least from a textbook published under the auspices of free speech.

If China were ever to develop deliberative, democratic institutions, perhaps then a serious debate, pointing out the flawed realities of the system and its needed reform, could ensue. Until then, I guess we could tolerate a bit more one-party rhetoric and presumptuous propaganda. After all, we are the sons and daughters of Henry VII, Napoleon, and Mussolini.

Had I had more time during the Q&A to reflect and pose a really difficult question for professor Yu that I thought might stump him, it would have been something like the following: "Professor Yu, if you could be the government for a day, what would you do differently?"

Ethan Arrow is an editorial intern at the Atlantic Community. He is currently an MA student at the Free University of Berin, studying European Integration within the scope of German Studies.



Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Michael T. Klare: The Rise of the "Petro-Superpowers"
• Andrew Bishop: Is China the New Japan?
• Eckart von Klaedon: India's Changes