(MintPress) – As Americans voted decisively to give President Barack Obama four more years in office yesterday, China, the most populous nation on earth, is set to change political leadership, a decision that will have major ramifications for the world economy and the future of the U.S.-China relationship.
On Nov. 8, the Chinese political elite will gather in Beijing for the 18th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party to elect Xi Jinping as the new leader of the People’s Republic. As both U.S. presidential candidates offer similar confrontational visions for the future U.S.-China relationship, the underlying issue — a gross imbalance in the import-export — will likely hinder an honest criticism of human rights violations and state authoritarianism in the East Asian country.
The U.S. relationship with China continues to be driven by economic necessity. Although Xi has hinted at the possibility of political reform in the dogmatic single party system, his presence alone will not guarantee significant reforms in the Chinese political system. U.S. complicity in these crimes will continue insofar as there is a mutually beneficial economic relationship.
Asian values capitalism, a dying model?
Although Xi was an ardent revolutionary, working on an agricultural commune before attending university in 1975, his leadership may bring some small steps toward democratization.
According to a recent report, Xi reportedly told Hu Yaobang, a high level party official, “Since the people are getting impatient with mere talk about reform, we must raise high the banner of reform, including political liberalization.”
The 18th Party Congress will also vet the next cadre of political leadership to surround Xi going forward. While the closed door, secretive meeting may perpetuate a pattern of hegemonic authoritarianism, the current system may bring about its own undoing, as the outdated brand of “Asian values” capitalism cannot survive in the long run.
Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore, helped to coin the term “Asian values capitalism” in the mid 1990s. The idea was to promote a system that attracts foreign investment and free market reforms without extending the democratic freedoms that typically accompany “Western capitalism.”
The “Asian values,” or “Singaporean capitalism,” has been trumpeted as a perfectly acceptable pairing of state authoritarianism with market oriented economic reforms, allowing citizens’ “freedoms” to increase in the economic sphere while freedoms in political life remains non-existent.
However, many critics believe that this is impossible to sustain in the long-run as citizens become increasingly aware of state repression and burgeoning democracies in neighboring countries.
“I think today the world is asking for a real alternative. Would you like to live in a world where the only alternative is either anglo-saxon neoliberalism or Chinese-Singaporean capitalism with Asian values?” said Slovenian philosopher and social critic Slavoj Zizek.
Zizek continues in a recent Al Jazeera interview, saying, “I claim if we do nothing we will gradually approach a kind of a new type of authoritarian society. Here I see the world historical importance of what is happening today in China. Until now there was one good argument for capitalism: sooner or later it brought a demand for democracy …”
A democratic system may seem like a distant dream for the billions living under the current oppressive Chinese government. However, citizens, particularly those living in more urban centers, are increasingly questioning their government and its role in political and economic life.
In July, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong residents took to the streets calling for democracy and transparent governance. The marches, held mainly on university campuses, marked 15 years since the U.K. returned the island to China.
As a semi-autonomous region, Hong Kong has been relatively free to protest Beijing policies. While the U.S. may pay lip service to democracy promotion in other countries, China’s economic and military prowess may prevent an honest criticism of a top American trade partner.
Democrats and Republicans present similar China policy
While both candidates decry the imbalance in the U.S.-China trade relationship, neither major candidate has offered a comprehensive vision for revitalizing American manufacturing amidst an increasingly globalized, hyper-competitive economy.
The year 2012 continued a trend of unbalanced trade that saw the U.S. import more than $273 billion worth of Chinese goods, while only exporting $69 billion to our largest trade partner.
Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have praised lowering trade restrictions and expanding free trade relationships in East Asia as a means to promote mutual economic prosperity. However, it is exactly this extreme laissez faire economic disposition that sends American jobs overseas, to countries with lower wage standards and few environmental regulations.
Additionally, the U.S. has done little to criticize China for human rights violations against Tibetans and other minority groups like the Muslim Uyghur community in Western China. U.S. leadership recognizes the strength of the Chinese economy and the need to maintain a cautiously amicable relationship if we are to promote gradual political reforms and an improvement in the trade relationship.
However, there is little Washington can do to stem the rising tide of China and other superpowers. As the centers of power shift away from North America and Europe, rising powers like China will play an important role in the increasingly multipolar world.
This hasn’t stopped President Barack Obama from shifting U.S. military troops to East Asia and Australia in an effort to protect Japan, South Korea and other close regional allies.
While Mitt Romney had taken a stronger stance, labeling China a “currency manipulator,” Obama offers a similar vision of confrontation rather than cooperation as a strategy to thaw relations with America’s adversary.