Monday, January 31, 2011

Thoughts on China and Egypt

The protests in Egypt have garnered considerable press all over the world, and China is no exception.  However, it is not for the same reasons.  Media such as CNN are quick to emphasize popular dissent, broadcasting vivid images of a people discontent with an oppressive regime and taking to the streets in protest.  A quick glance at CCTV shows a clearly different story.  A recent Chinese media story describes the movement as chaotic, and focuses on the economic repercussions such as the downturn in the Egyptian stock market and tourism market.  Laughable? Maybe.  Effective? Yes. 

Many a friend has come to China expecting to encounter a population yearning for democracy.  While there has been enough popular discontent to keep the government on its toes, there is certainly not enough dissatisfaction to inspire a popular revolt.  Part of this is due to the government's control over the media.  The government has been effective about controlling the debate over democracy.  Democratic processes (including Hong Kong and Taiwan) are broadcast as protests, chaotic and disruptive.  Instances of corruption in democratic societies have been touted as institutional flaws, causing, for example, a good friend of mine to call democracy in America simply a game for the rich.  Calls for reform and human rights abroad are responded to with appeals to nationalism and anti-imperialism. 

In addition, the government has carefully studied the lessons from its socialist neighbors.  It watched as a combination of economic and political freedoms tore the Soviet Union apart, and as a result, even though there have been waves of economic reforms, the Party's reach and the political institutions that govern the country today have remained largely unchanged. Wary of its potentially precarious situation, the government maintains policies aimed at assuaging the economic concerns of the socially mobile: keeping the currency low (China is still by far a manufacturing country), pumping liquidity into the economy, expanding educational opportunities, as well as maintaining growth and employment.  With this kind of Party, who wants to ruin a good thing?

The question of whether the events in Egypt will spill over in China has begun to surface.  The word around the blogosphere is a resounding no (see entries from the New Yorker and the Peking Duck).  The reasoning is simple: while the protests in Egypt are new, in China, it's still the same old song.  

Monday, January 24, 2011

Being Mixed Blood in China: A Year in Reflection

Recently, this blog passed its one year anniversary.  And so, I thought that the most suitable post to write would be to take a step back and reflect on the very question of why I write, or particularly why I write here.  

George Orwell, in his piece Why I Write, points out a few qualities that motivate writers everywhere.
He describes traits such as a desire to seek out truth, an urge to push the world in a certain direction, an appreciation of literary beauty, and, in all honesty, for the sheer purpose of one's own ego.  

In a recent piece by the New Yorker entitled An Inspirational Letter to My Students, Roger Rosenblatt describes the art of writing to his students.  True writing, he states, is not about selling more books, or about dwelling over the intricacies of style, whether one has used the right verb or adverb.  Writing must strive for greatness, must form an opinion, and most of all, must be useful to the world.  

I write for these reasons and more.  

I write not because I see myself as the writer of a "China blog," a blog about China by some enlightened foreigner who can explain China to the world. Aside from hubris, opinion, a desire for greatness etc., I write because I believe (and hope) I represent a different opinion. 

While I am close with both China and America, I do not belong in full to either one.  I am not viewed as fully American or Chinese.  At the same time, I do not need to defend one side against the other.  So in a way, I have a certain degree of objective distance to both.  

I view this as not a better opinion, or a more informed opinion.  It is simply a different opinion.  It may not be great, but hopefully, it is of use to this world.  

And this, is why I write.