As someone who works a lot on China and its inner workings, I’ve been following the mood music especially carefully since Trump’s election - and over the last few months as the US President has single-handedly destabilised the world order.
Peter, your "deep contradictions" are exaggerated I think, if they even exist at all.
All land territorial disputes, bar India, are long resolved. The South China Sea has many overlapping territorial claims, not just involving China, and peaceful negotiations are ongoing.
Saying China "champions sovereignty" but "is accused of...." is a very weak argument, I'm afraid.
And whilst "surveillance and control" undoubtedly exists, it is hardly unprecedented. Look no further than what happens in the UK these days.
Clearly the West is uncomfortable with China's rise and the end of its own (USA) hegemony. But there's no evidence that China seeks anything other than the multipolarity you describe. Most of the rest of the world will only welcome that outcome.
Thanks Tim for the thoughtful comments. For territorial, I mean India and Taiwan (of course); naturally others have claims in S China Sea but PRC the only one with a ruling against in from the PCA. Not sure what you mean re the distinction of championing sovereignty/ supporting Russia. That does not seem to be a very controversial comment to make but rather one that is self evident; but perhaps I’m missing something. Likewise the restrictions of freedoms of speech in the name of security that comes at a price esp for minorities in China (not just xinjiang but Mongolia, Tibet etc) doesn’t seem to me very contentious to me - nor to many Chinese scholars and intellectuals; as you’ll know, discussions and debates about this are very lively in China. Re multipolarity. Sure: but one persons idea of what this means is not the same as another’s….thanks for subscribing and as I say thanks for the comments too…
Peter, appreciate your comments. I've lived in Taiwan for the last 40 odd years, so know a little about the region. It's not easy for people in the west to look at China (or Russia for that matter) without a very biased perspective. For example, freedom of speech may be sacred to Europeans but it is much lower down the list of priorities in East Asia. Security/ stability really is the highest priority. Come to think of it, freedom of speech no longer seems quite so sacred in Europe either.
As a historian you ought to be able to transcend such bias when you write about current affairs. Your writing about Central Asia is outstanding and I intend next to tackle your book about Climate. But, sorry, I find your writing on present day China and Russia belongs better in a Daily Telegraph column than in an Oxford professor's substack.
I'm not sure what I've written that would generate such a strong reaction; my piece on the China white paper is a close reading of a policy document, that sets out what the authors are trying to say and do. That seems to me crucial to help enlighten those in the 'West'. For some reason a couple of sentences seem to have acted as a trigger for you, for whcih I can only apologise. Russia is more complicated; but I'd like to think subscribers would be OK to read things they don't agree with, rather than try to be insulting. Echo chambers are boring; and can become dangerous when people only read and hear what they want.
Hi Peter - Despite the major caveats of the difference between intention and reality that you mention towards the end of the essay, the GSI sounds (in relation to everything else happening at the moment) a bit positive. Is it (d'you think)? Or am I misreading?
It shows the search for a narrative. I think that matters in its own right. Whether it carries aa much water outside China as the CCP hope and thunk is another matter. It certainly strikes a chord in many parts of the world, esp in LatAm & across swathes of Africa. A few more reservations in much of Asia - but here too its message finds a lot of support. Especially in the age of Trump….
Or - as Tolkien's Elves would say - both yes and no! :) But yes, I quite see that whatever the GSI actually says, much depends on what the rest of the world makes of it - and believes of it. And of course, everyone's (every country's) understanding of 'security' is subjective. But in the unhinged world of Trump and populism, it does at least come across as slightly less aggressive than Western rhetoric on China suggests. It's a fascinating essay - thank you.
Peter, your "deep contradictions" are exaggerated I think, if they even exist at all.
All land territorial disputes, bar India, are long resolved. The South China Sea has many overlapping territorial claims, not just involving China, and peaceful negotiations are ongoing.
Saying China "champions sovereignty" but "is accused of...." is a very weak argument, I'm afraid.
And whilst "surveillance and control" undoubtedly exists, it is hardly unprecedented. Look no further than what happens in the UK these days.
Clearly the West is uncomfortable with China's rise and the end of its own (USA) hegemony. But there's no evidence that China seeks anything other than the multipolarity you describe. Most of the rest of the world will only welcome that outcome.
Thanks Tim for the thoughtful comments. For territorial, I mean India and Taiwan (of course); naturally others have claims in S China Sea but PRC the only one with a ruling against in from the PCA. Not sure what you mean re the distinction of championing sovereignty/ supporting Russia. That does not seem to be a very controversial comment to make but rather one that is self evident; but perhaps I’m missing something. Likewise the restrictions of freedoms of speech in the name of security that comes at a price esp for minorities in China (not just xinjiang but Mongolia, Tibet etc) doesn’t seem to me very contentious to me - nor to many Chinese scholars and intellectuals; as you’ll know, discussions and debates about this are very lively in China. Re multipolarity. Sure: but one persons idea of what this means is not the same as another’s….thanks for subscribing and as I say thanks for the comments too…
Peter, appreciate your comments. I've lived in Taiwan for the last 40 odd years, so know a little about the region. It's not easy for people in the west to look at China (or Russia for that matter) without a very biased perspective. For example, freedom of speech may be sacred to Europeans but it is much lower down the list of priorities in East Asia. Security/ stability really is the highest priority. Come to think of it, freedom of speech no longer seems quite so sacred in Europe either.
As a historian you ought to be able to transcend such bias when you write about current affairs. Your writing about Central Asia is outstanding and I intend next to tackle your book about Climate. But, sorry, I find your writing on present day China and Russia belongs better in a Daily Telegraph column than in an Oxford professor's substack.
I'm not sure what I've written that would generate such a strong reaction; my piece on the China white paper is a close reading of a policy document, that sets out what the authors are trying to say and do. That seems to me crucial to help enlighten those in the 'West'. For some reason a couple of sentences seem to have acted as a trigger for you, for whcih I can only apologise. Russia is more complicated; but I'd like to think subscribers would be OK to read things they don't agree with, rather than try to be insulting. Echo chambers are boring; and can become dangerous when people only read and hear what they want.
In what way is this policy document an answer to the Trump administration? Or is it a policy statement on its own right?
Own right ! Most analysts believe PRC spends a lot more time thinking about the US than it does in reality…
Hi Peter - Despite the major caveats of the difference between intention and reality that you mention towards the end of the essay, the GSI sounds (in relation to everything else happening at the moment) a bit positive. Is it (d'you think)? Or am I misreading?
It shows the search for a narrative. I think that matters in its own right. Whether it carries aa much water outside China as the CCP hope and thunk is another matter. It certainly strikes a chord in many parts of the world, esp in LatAm & across swathes of Africa. A few more reservations in much of Asia - but here too its message finds a lot of support. Especially in the age of Trump….
Or - as Tolkien's Elves would say - both yes and no! :) But yes, I quite see that whatever the GSI actually says, much depends on what the rest of the world makes of it - and believes of it. And of course, everyone's (every country's) understanding of 'security' is subjective. But in the unhinged world of Trump and populism, it does at least come across as slightly less aggressive than Western rhetoric on China suggests. It's a fascinating essay - thank you.