China and Indias Big Debate on Democracy
Not every day do the world's two largest countries have a neighborly argument
about democracy.
But such an argument erupted here last weekend when a senior Chinese official
and the Indian prime minister took turns expounding on the relative merits
of bread and liberty at a conference held by the New York- based Asia Society.
At a gala on Friday, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh quoted a speech by President
George W. Bush that was easily construed as a swipe at China.
"Some people have said the 21st century will be the Asian century,"
Singh quoted Bush as saying. "I believe the 21st century will be freedom's
century."
It was as close as Singh comes to ruffling feathers.
The next day, the Chinese commerce minister, Bo Xilai, came as close as senior
Chinese figures do to fighting back, describing democracy as a "means,"
not an "end."
It was like a sneak preview of the complicated New World Order that Indians
and Chinese like to say they are constructing, according to veteran Asia watchers
like Richard Holbrooke, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who
entered the Foreign Service in Vietnam, and Kishore Mahbubani, a former Singaporean
ambassador to the UN and a prominent writer on Asian affairs.
"I'm not of the view that we should classify countries as democratic
countries and nondemocratic countries," Bo said through an interpreter,
to vigorous applause from many in the Chinese delegation of 200 bureaucrats
and businesspeople. "If you simply understand or interpret democracy
as allowing people to go on protest in the streets, then I think it's not
always necessarily a good thing."
Without citing India or the majority of Mumbai's population that lives in
slums or the shanties ringing the conference venue, Bo referred to "some
developing countries" that cram their poor into "clusterings of
shantytowns" where life is too bleak for freedom to mean anything.
"Some people in those places cannot even have a shower for years on end.
And these people - most of them have no access to education," he said.
"So how can you imagine that these people are in a position to talk about
democracy when they are simply illiterate?"
More applause - though, again, not from the Indians, who know that their illiterate
vote at higher rates than the well-off.
At the conference, the assembled international investors, diplomats and scholars
seemed keen to thrust upon China and India a friendship that fits better in
theory than in practice. Corporate bosses declared over and over that it was
not "China or India," but "China and India."
Everyone seemed to agree that the two countries, working collectively, could
eclipse American power. The century was declared to be theirs for the taking
by speakers like Clyde Prestowitz Jr., president of the Economic Strategy
Institute in Washington and the author of "Three Billion New Capitalists:
The Great Shift of Wealth and Power to the East."
"Asians are going from being passengers on the bus of globalization to
being co-drivers," said Mahbubani, the former Singaporean ambassador.
Over a cup of spiced tea, he spoke of the "tremors" already visible
as the West, wary of ceding its influence, responds to the ascendancy of China
and India, both at the height of "cultural confidence." He cited
the American revulsion to the bid by China's Cnooc for the American oil giant
Unocal, and the European fracas over Lakshmi Mittal's multibillion-dollar
hostile takeover bid for the steel maker Arcelor.
"If Mittal's name were Jeffrey Roberts," the former diplomat said,
"there would be no problem."
Holbrooke said the meetings offered a preview of what the world will look
like when Asia is stewarded by Asians. On one hand was the "the drama
of the two largest countries having a public argument over democracy,"
he said. On the other was the new reality of Asian powerhouses relating directly
to each other as both "competitors and collaborators" - convened,
but no longer lectured to, by the United States.
The 200 Chinese functionaries and managers had come to learn about India.
The conference provided them with simultaneous translation, and panelists
kept imploring them to ask questions. Few did.
As they meandered about and picked warily at Indian food, the Chinese seemed
underwhelmed about the whole India thing, as a handful of them revealed in
interviews. Many of them see the United States as their rival, even as Indians
fixate on a rivalry with China. The resulting mismatch creates much Chinese
confusion about whether "India versus China" is even a real comparison,
as was evident in a closed meeting between Chinese delegates and Asia Society
members after the conference.
"Chinese coming here, including myself, think this is totally chaotic,"
Donald Tang, the chairman of Bear Stearns Asia, said at the meeting. "If
you come to India and spend a couple days here, you realize, 'My God, the
world is not flat.'"
After seeing Bo's speech, Tang said Chinese businessmen had whispered to him
that India was in no position to preach.
"Indians love their democracy, but they don't have lots of freedom,"
he said in the closed meeting, quoting the Chinese reaction. "The millions
of people who live in slums in Mumbai - they have democracy, but no freedom."
The most positive Chinese view about India seemed to be that it was increasingly
emulating China.
Lui Ji, honorary president and former dean of the China-Europe International
Business School in Shanghai and one of China's most influential and politically
connected scholars, said Singh reminded him of Deng Xiaoping, the father of
China's economic reforms. The professor said he was happy to learn that Singh
is in his mid-70s, the stage of life at which Deng prodded his own country
to embrace change.
And in a sign of changing times, the professor even hinted that China, though
unwilling to take lessons on democracy from Washington, could learn a thing
or two from India.
"They feel very proud of the country," he said of Indians. "They
call it the largest democracy. We hope India can use good democratic practices
to lead us by example."
Source: Herald
Tribune