• IN THIS SECTION

Five Sept. 11 Suspects to Face Trial in New York

The Obama administration has announced it will try 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9-11 Gitmo detainees in a civilian federal court in New York, allowing them the protections of the U.S. Constitution even though they are not U.S. citizens.

Do you agree with this?

Yes
No
I don't know

View results

Four Radical Chinese Muslims Transferred to Bermuda

Four Chinese Uighers (radical Chinese Muslims) were recently transferred to Bermuda. Do you think it's a good idea to release Gitmo detainees to idyllic vacation retreats?

Yes
No
Not Sure

View results

July 16, 2008

Exclusive: Can Democracy Deliver the Goods?

William R. Hawkins

A Gallup Poll taken June 9-12 asked people how much confidence they had in a list of American institutions. In the favorable categories of "A great deal" and "Quite a lot," the Presidency garnered only 26% support and Congress earned an even lower 12%. In the unfavorable categories of "Very little" and "None," the Presidency rated a dismal 48% and Congress 41%. These are the premier institutions of American democracy. The President and members of Congress are elected by the people. The electorate changed the majority party in both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, from Republican to Democratic. Yet, now Congress is rated less favorably than before - albeit the decline is not very great because the Congressional image was already badly tarnished.

The Supreme Court, whose justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, had the confidence of 32% of those polled. Big Business, whose lobbying is closely identified with Washington policy-making, had the confidence of a mere 20% of the public.

The three institutions given the most confidence by those polled were the Military (71%), Small Business (60%) and the Police (58%). These were the only institutions which had majority responses in the two favorable categories.

This sad approval rating for democracy came to mind as I was watching the four part series about China aired on the Discovery Channel, July 9-12. The series was hosted by veteran journalist Ted Koppel best known for his "Nightline" program on ABC. China is not a democracy. It is a Communist Party dictatorship. Its campaign against dissent in Tibet, its crackdown on human rights activists before the Olympics, and its support for other dictatorships around the world, from Burma to Zimbabwe to Cuba, are well known.

Yet, when Koppel asked a young Chinese fashion photographer who had studied in the United States what he thought of the government in Beijing, he replied, "I love my country, but I don't love my government. I do trust my government....We are citizens. It is responsibility to follow government orders....There must be a reason for what they are doing." The photographer spoke in English and had recently converted to Christianity. He valued creativity and independence, but that did not make him an advocacte of democracy when the authoritarian government was doing such a good job of moving the country forward.

Koppel interviewed Vincent Lo, a billionaire real estate developer in Chongqing. It is often argued that the new Chinese business elite will lead the way toward democracy. But Lo argued that "democracy sounds good, but in practice it does not always deliver the goods... If China were to adopt a Western-style democracy today, I don't think I would have the confidence to invest so much money."

Christopher Patten, Great Britain's last governor of Hong Kong, found the same attitude. His campaign to create institutions of democracy and civil liberties before the city was turned over to Beijing earned him a reputation for being "bad for business." In his memoir East and West: China, Power and the Future of Asia, he noted that both Western and local businessmen felt "Political harmony was essential to business profits." The head of a large British international bank told Patten that if he did not retreat on his reform program, he would mobilize other businessmen to boycott the Conservative Party of which Patten was a member.

The Discovery series was filmed in and around the southwestern city of Chongqing, which has 13.5 million people. It is the central hub for an area with 300 million people, a population equal to that of the United States. The national government in Beijing has plans to increase Chongqing's population to 20 million, attracting peasants from the countryside into the industrial city. The series was titled "The People's Republic of Capitalism" to emphasis the theme of Chinese economic development. Koppel's argument was that capitalism, not communism, is responsible for the rapid progress. He is only partly right. There is certainly a go-go business climate in China. To get rich is glorious, and so is the hope of illiterate peasants that their children may go to college. The government, however, is deeply involved in harnessing the matchless energy of capitalism to the nation's benefit; and that's the key.

Chongqing has been designated by Beijing as a center for the emerging Chinese auto industry. China is the world's second largest vehicle market, but it will soon pass the United States to become number one. Every day 25,000 new drivers hit the streets. Buick, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen and other foreign firms are producing cars in China to fulfill this rising demand. These foreign firms must, however, take a Chinese partner who will own a majority share of the joint venture. Imported cars are discouraged. Technology is freely shared with Chinese auto companies. Both the joint ventures and the local firms are already thinking about exporting cars to the United States. This would be another massive blow to the American-based auto industry, which Washington has long abandoned.

Indeed, the U.S. Treasury is encouraging Chinese investors to buy up American companies that are on the ropes. The Joint U.S.-China Fact Sheet released at the end of the 4th Strategic Economic Dialogue held last month, states that "the United States welcomes sovereign wealth fund investment, including from China." That means money from the Beijing regime, as well as from enterprises. For example, Wanxiang is China's largest auto parts maker. As the Wall Street Journal has reported, "Chinese factories have dealt crushing blows to American manufacturers unable to match China's low costs. Now Wanxiang is swooping into the American rust belt and scooping up investments in hard-hit auto suppliers." Koppel cited a case where the acquired U.S. factory was kept open, but Wanxiang slashed benefits and cut wages in half. No wonder the average American doubts whether the policies of his government are good for the country.

Koppel interviewed the head of the Ford venture in Chongqing. He said that Ford was a "global company." Koppel's question about national loyalty was no longer relevant. The company merely responds to international market opportunities, the executive said. However, government policy in China and America are major factors in determining those opportunities. As Koppel noted, "The Chinese government has a vision, a strategic plan for the [auto] industry." There is no vision in the U.S. government for the auto industry or any other sector of manufacturing. Indeed, there is hostility to the very notion of a "vision thing." Yet, a government that abdicates its responsibility to bolster the nation's economic strength in the global arena, the strength upon which the income of its citizens depends, does not deserve the confidence of its people.

Among the Chinese, "what is keeping everybody more or less on balance right now is the inarguable fact that China is better off today than it was 30 years ago," Koppel said. "If for any reason it looks like that has stopped, then the Chinese government has lost its legitimacy and its reason for having earned the peoples' trust." The unelected rulers in Beijing understand this, but the elected leaders in Washington do not believe that the same logic applies to their status. They still believe that a barrage of 30-second TV ads just before an election will make people forget about the real world.

Republicans cling to "free trade," an academic theory they believe relieves them of the duty to think about global competition. Their supporters in Big Business encourage them in this sophistry because of he corporate focus on investing in China. The real income of most American workers has been stagnant or falling for a generation as foreign rivals have stunted U.S. expansion. The Democrats have fallen for the "green" mythology which explicitly calls for a downsizing of the American standard of living to "conserve" energy and resources. Their "do without" mantra threatens to bring back the Era of Malaise of the Jimmy Carter administration. Thus, Beijing's demand that the U.S. "step back" to make room for Chinese growth is supported in practice by both major parties.

The American people deserve better choices, but are not confident that the current democratic process will give it to them.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council in Washington, DC. E-mail him at HawkinsUSA@aol.com.

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)

Print This E-mail This

Share It: