Reclaiming Patriotism: Time to Rethink China’s ‘Peaceful Rise’
23 Feb 2007 22:16 EST

In my last article, A Crack in the Diplomatic Facade, I reported on Ambassador Zhou’s speech to LSE alumni on “China’s Peaceful Development”. Far from taking place as an isolated event, the speech was part of an intentional, albeit rather transparent, program aimed at whitewashing China’s image and advancing the nation’s credibility and legitimacy. As Tenzing, who attended and challenged the ambassador, explained in that article, the “Peaceful Development” should be seen as a strategic renaming of the campaign which China had formerly publicized as a “Peaceful Rise” to power.

Fast-forward from February 7 to February 23. Vice President Dick Cheney spoke today in Sydney, criticizing the sharp rift between China’s stated intentions and the reality of the country’s actions:

“Last month’s anti-satellite test, China’s continued fast-paced military buildup are less constructive and are not consistent with China’s stated goal of a peaceful rise.”

Of course it doesn’t take a decrepit evil mastermind to realize this. Members of the LSE audience at the beginning of the month were asking Zhou about the same issues, challenging his and China’s thesis that their “rise to power” is peaceful in nature.

At the same time, however, Cheney praised China for their role in the recent North Korea deal, and reiterated a hardline position that the ‘war’ in Iraq “must be won or terrorists would be emboldened worldwide.” The reason I raise this point is not to rail against Cheney and his policy, but to draw a parallel between the United States and China in regard to a possible schism between the ideas and behavior of government hardliners and progressive individuals.

In the case of the United States, despite the Bush administration’s continued and insistent push for escalation in Iraq and aggression against other countries deemed dangerous to U.S. interests, people who saw things differently stood up to it. In November 2006 they elected a Democratic-majority Congress with a mandate to end the ‘war’ and change the nation’s foreign policy direction. And while with the President still in office and politics as they are, it may take some time to see the fruits of this action, the fact that it took place must not be ignored.

In China, Party hardliners continue with the age-old rhetoric on Tibet: the argument that Tibet was always a part of China, the myth of liberating Tibet from feudalism, the claim that Tibetans are better-off under Chinese rule, the defamation of the Dalai Lama and the relegation of Tibet from an issue of national sovereignty to a personal issue between China and the Dalai Lama, and so on. The Iowa State Daily just recently ran an opinion piece series refuting the rhetoric once again, but after more than fifty years of the same talk, a new refutation is aside from the point; the point is merely to speak to a new audience.

China’s party officials stick to their hardline roots not just on talking points, but on their implementation of policy as well. Rapid resettlement into Tibet continues, alongside unprecedented resource extraction, new waves of arrests, and murder.

What’s interesting to see, and where this story comes full circle, is that China is not immune to the outcome of its own people learning and speaking the truth, even at the high levels of academia. Professor Ge Jianxiong, a prominent Chinese historian who has in the past carried weight influencing the content and direction of China’s history textbooks, has now published an article in the China Review in which he defies the official Chinese historical claim to Tibet. Professor Ge is clearly aware of the contemporary Chinese theme of “peaceful rise”, and writes:

“When discussing the peaceful rise of China and the history of the great powers of the world, it is natural to think of ancient China.

...

Until now, there are those people who feel that the more they exaggerate the territory of historical ‘China’ or China’s successive dynasties and kingdoms the more patriotic they are. Actually, it is exactly the opposite.

If China really wishes to rise peacefully and be on a solid footing to face the future, we must understand the sum of our history and learn from our experiences.”

As of yet, it remains unclear how party officials will respond to Professor Ge’s paper. However, the significance of this sort of attitude coming from Chinese sources is tremendous. Not only has Ge challenged the official party line; he’s also challenged the notion that following the party line is patriotic, claiming instead that coming to terms with truth is patriotic. This act of “reclaiming patriotism” is reminiscent of the anti-war slogans “Peace is Patriotic” and “Dissent is Patriotic” in post-9/11 America, or the slogan “Resistance, because I love Serbia” in the campaign to topple Milosevic, and it is the fundamental basis for challenging despotic rule.

What does all of this mean for Tibet and the Tibetan struggle? In my view, it’s an indication that, while extremely difficult to reach, Tibetan independence is a genuine possibility. Fifty years ago, Chinese thought of Tibetans as savage cannibals. By sometime in the last five to ten years, many Chinese had come to terms with the idea that it was “sad” what had happened to Tibet during the 50’s and 60’s, but at the same time still insisted that Tibetans were Chinese, and that the solution lies in providing ‘aid’ and ‘development’ to Tibetans as compensation. Now, we have established, legitimate Chinese scholars challenging the framework of historical revisionism used to justify China’s continued occupation of Tibet.

Where will China be five years from now? Ten years from now? It largely depends on how the world responds to China’s “rise” in the years to come. Professor Ge’s paper is proof that China is sensitive to the political and social cost of lying about the occupation of Tibet, and the shame that comes with it.

If world citizens continue to be vigilant, rigorous and unrelenting in their challenges to China, then there is great hope of further change in the Chinese people’s attitudes. If the world slumbers happily on our Made-in-China pillows not wanting to upset the baby dragon, then may fate be our judge when the dragon is fully grown.