From Jeremiah: “@Tom: I agree the issue of ‘not if, but when’ these reforms take hold is at the heart of this debate. Though there are those in China who argue that rule of law, free media etc. are forever ill-suited to “Chinese culture.”

I would disagree that an evolution of rights is an inevitable outcome of current circumstances in China.

I am not one of those that says that freedoms are ill-suited to some inherent “Chinese Culture,” culture is amorphous and ever-changing, which is precisely why I would disagree that an evolution of rights is an inevitable outcome of current circumstances in China, rejecting the “not if but when” argument.

Again, it goes back to the ability of those in government to wield arbitrary power without consequences. Rights are inherent checks against the power of the state, and the State in China does not seem to want to have these kinds of checks to its power.

My point was that the Olympics indicates a general attitude in Chinese government. If freedoms are inconvenient, then they can do away with them. Indeed, if rights can be swept way arbitrarily, then there is no real progress.

In other words, if a decade’s or so worth of progress on freedoms can be pushed aside for the Olympics, even if it is a “big event,” what does that say about the substance of that progress, the commitment of the government to rights? Rights require a deep dedication and China has proven it does not have that in them, at least right now. What will be the next “big event” that will justify this kind of crackdown?

Rights require the commitment of the government and the ability of a government to face injustices and problems, a capacity for self criticism and self evaluation China does not have enough of currently, in my opinion. If reporters can be bribed not to cover something, if rights lawyers and reporters jailed, criticism smashed on the internet, then how can this consciousness develop?

People have been saying for at least two decades that they do not like how China is handling rights, but it is getting better. This is like saying, “Yes that man beats his son, but the way he is treating his daughters is getting better.”

Indeed, gradualism was not an answer to the American Civil Rights movement, at least when Dr. King railed against it, and I doubt its validity in China. Do Chinese citizens have less of a need for rights than African Americans? If not, then what possible reason could there be for denying them? Rights come when people demand them and the government chooses to respect them. Many reports and books like Philip Pan’s “Out of Mao’s Shadow: The Struggle for the Soul of a New China” shows that when people stand up for their rights, they are beaten down.

While it might not be fair to depict China according to individual incidents or events, how many occurrences does one need before there is a pattern established?

Just a couple of quick points:

1) The ideas I suggested are not uniquely mine nor are they uniquely “Western,” we can find similar prescriptions in Chinese writings both of yesterday and today. It should also be noted that free speech is enshrined in the Chinese constitution, despite current practice.

2) @Tom: I agree the issue of ‘not if, but when’ these reforms take hold is at the heart of this debate. Though there are those in China who argue that rule of law, free media etc. are forever ill-suited to “Chinese culture.” Where I might quibble on the speed perspective is whether issues of corruption, economic inequality, environmental degradation etc. might require more immediate drastic action than a ‘wait and see’ approach. It all depends, I suppose, on how one views the severity and acuteness of China’s current challenges.

To conclude that China is moving backwards due to the Olympics is like saying that Seattle moved backwards just because the police tear-gassed some anti-globalization protestors at the WTO summit. It’s an exceptional event, and reading anything out of it is as productive as reading tea leaves.

given the long term trend towards militarization of american police forces, and the increasingly authoritarian response to what used to be considered the constitutional right to assembly and free speech in this country (e.g. the recent arrest of democracy now journalist amy goodman and preemptive police raids on people’s homes in minneapolis, both on laughable charges of “intent to riot” during the republican national convention), the 1999 police riot in seattle looks more and more like a bellweather.

time will tell if beijing 2008 was a blip, or part of a trend, but it’s not unreasonable to ask whether increased police control of the populace and repression of fairly innocuous dissent isn’t a sign of things moving in that general direction, and not just an exceptional event. after all, the state rarely cedes exceptional powers after it arrogates them, regardless of the country it’s located in. these things have their own inertia.

mostly, to get back to the topic at hand, i think that “western” discussions of china and democracy tend to be painfully short on specifics. are we talking about contested multiparty elections, freedom of the press, right to dissent in public, influence of popular sentiment on public policy direction, internal party organization, corruption and popular abil;ity to remove problematic officials or have redress of grievances, form of trials, etc? or is it the equally amorphous topic of “development,” economic policy, shiny buildings in pudong, conflating capitalism with democracy (or movement toward same)?

sadly, most of the discussion i come across of americans (or “the west”) critiquing china’s lack of democracy, freedom, whatever, is that it tends to focus on the broad sweeping statements rather than specific points of contention, and barely ever seem to be part of any internal chinese conversation about such things. that being said. as jeremiah pointed out, not having effective freedom of the press or the right to protest without reprisal makes gauging internal sentiment pretty difficult, and tempts most china watchers into the tom friedman/nick kristoff-esque rhetorical trick of using a pithy quote from an anonymous native informant who stands in for the whole of china (or chinese youth, CCP, what have you).

perhaps “china” is just too big or a frame of reference to really get at what’s going on (or what should, for that matter)? should these discussions be focused on provincial or municipal levels, given reform-era china’s significant degree of political decentralization?

in beijing, it’s easy to conflate the olympics, china, and the government. would the discussion look the same outside of the capital?

To some extent, the argument against immediate democratization is a loss-aversion argument. We know that democracy can be wonderful, we also know that democracy can fail miserably. Given that China is moderately stable at the moment, better to be the tortoise than the hare. Arguing against rapid change is not a rejection of slow change. If you’re pushing rapid change, you’ve got to realize that your opponents are not necessarily disagreeing with you about the desirability of rule-of-law, or independent judiciary, or public involvement in the legislative process.

NateT: I would caution against drawing any conclusions about the long-term direction of movement in China based on the tightening-up for the Olympics. The Olympics were treated as a Major Event (TM) (C) (R). To conclude that China is moving backwards due to the Olympics is like saying that Seattle moved backwards just because the police tear-gassed some anti-globalization protestors at the WTO summit. It’s an exceptional event, and reading anything out of it is as productive as reading tea leaves.

So you say: “A better question would be are post-Olympic Chinese freer that they were a year or two ago, and the answer would have to be no.” But it’s way too early to answer that question yet — heck, we haven’t even reached the end of the Paralympics yet. See what happens a year from now, or even better, ten. Looking at these individual events, or short-term trends, delivers a highly misleading picture.

Jeremiah, I happen to also be interested in principles with universal applicability– unfortunately in this case, the particular principles you are prescribing are deeply rooted (both historically and philosophically) in one specific tradition– your’s! And, much damage has been caused in the name of “spreading the good news of liberal democracy” as well. (A sometimes unfortunate utopian missinary impulse– starting with Christianity and continuing on in liberal democracy that Chris Hedges or John Gray have, for example, spoken persuasively about, I think).

It is because of this last reason that perhaps your readers who have been on the other side of the “impulse to share” in the past may get annoyed. Indeed, Bell makes an important point (to my mind) that productive dialog on this issue might be more affective speaking in Chinese and working alongside Chinese friends (otherwise, you are either singing to the choir– or worse).

This points not only to the history but also to cultural differences (which have absolutely nothing to do with the Chinese politburo, but rather just speak about cultural views in non-pluralistic societies– ?) Yes, a foreigner is always a foreigner in most place in the world.

Regarding, your question as to when the “international community” (ie community of liberal democracies” ) should stand up and say enough is enough– well, I would posit that such a united voice “should” occur when there is a moral imperative (which is quite different from prescriptive statements) such as free speech or rights to gather. Why? Because, even if you were to argue that humans have an inherent right to freedom f speech or gathering, you would quickly see why this is not a moral imperative and remains mainly prescriptive when you try and impose it– since of course, liberal democracies themselves are in the minority of world governments– and even among those governments where to draw the line is well, let’s say ambiguous– (that is, it does not seem to be in fact a CLEAR, unequuivacble moral imperative).

This is not in any way to state one shouldn’t speak up, but rather it is about better ways (more effective, more interesting, or even more coherent) of speaking up. As I have mentioned I agree with you in conetnt. It’s just statements such as “when do we say enough” or “universal principles” that strike me as troublesome….

I wanted to comment in the name of dialog and friendship.