Thomas Friedman gets the middle finger in the Middle Kingdom

It's not every day that you get to sit and watch a senior Chinese diplomat rip Thomas Friedman "a new one" (as we say in American colloquial parlance) as all the Chinese members of the audience cheer him on. But on Friday morning in a panel discussion titled  "China's Soft Power" that's what happened.

The panel was about how China's rising economic power in the world has brought it growing geopolitical influence - but is its low-key diplomatic stance incongruous and inappropriate for a country with so much influence throughout Asia, the Middle East and Africa?

Friedman accused China of being a "free loader" in the post-cold war world, while the U.S. has shouldered the role of global "guardian." He said that China needs to pull its weight by doing things like joining the U.S. in calling for sanctions to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He said China needs to do more to stop genocide in Sudan. China's U.N. Undersecretary-General Sha Zukang cleverly avoided commenting directly on the Iran situation, but on Sudan he said: "There is the impression that China is there for oil only -  that is the biggest lie I’ve ever heard."

Friedman also argued that it's in China's interest to work more directly with the U.S. on geopolitical issues because if the U.S. fails, then China will have to pick up the pieces. "If there is too little American power China will be forced to respond to that," he said.

Sha rejected the whole idea of "soft power," calling it a "condescending approach" and "notion created by Western developed countries." When it comes to world leadership, he said the world's leaders should not be "self-proclaimed" - he said they should be elected. China, he said, would not self-proclaim itself a world leader, because China's policy is always to treat other countries as "equals."

It's interesting that China's diplomatic strategy is to score points with other countries who chafe at American superpowerdom by advocating geopolitical democracy. No wonder Chinese leaders see U.S. support for internal democracy in China as an effort to score points against them.

At one point  Li Ruogu, Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of China, took a jab at U.S. interventionism in Iraq. "When you want to force others to accept an idea, you are doomed to fail," he said. The net effect of U.S. intervention in Iraq has been less peace, he rightly pointed out. Many in the audience - Western and Chinese - were nodding their heads. [Thanks to Ross for the correction on Li's title.]

Moderator Clay Chandler of Fortune magazine kicked off the hour on a provocative note with a critique of Premier Wen Jiabao's speech on Thursday night. He said it had sounded to him like every other speech by a Chinese leader that he had ever heard, and asked the panelists why Chinese leaders don't give more inspiring, interesting, or original speeches. He suggested that Wen had missed an opportunity to connect on a more direct and human level with the global business community, international media, and media pundits such as Mr. Friedman.

Sha retorted that Chinese leadership speeches are policy statements, and that trying to make each one original and entertaining is too risky: "If China changed the policy every day, you can imagine how people would react!" Delighted laughter arose from the Chinese half of the audience.

Another reason Chinese leaders give boring speeches because they can. Giving interesting speeches - by the standards of Western speechmaking at any rate - has little upside and much potential downside: people might quote them out of context or misinterpret them, or the leader might mis-speak in an effort at extemporaneous rhetorical flourish, with various consequences that might be used against him in internal political power struggles. Also, rousing, inspirational speeches just don't fit with the Chinese style of political leadership.  In Chinese culture, if you're already powerful, you don't want to act like there is a need to win anybody over. If you act like you care what people think of your speeches, you're admitting weakness. You leave it to loyal henchmen like Sha to say provocative things on your behalf, but avoid stooping to verbal sparring yourself. It also runs directly against Chinese culture for a powerful person to admit to being powerful or talk about being powerful. It's what you do, not what you say that counts.

A couple years ago a Chinese academic who advises the Chinese government on foreign policy issues told me that the best way for China to build global power, good will, and international credibility over the long run is to mind its own business, avoid criticizing the U.S. whenever possible, sit back and let the U.S. destroy its own power and credibility by itself. This is a classic Art of War strategy. Whether or not that actually is the official strategy, it seems to be working. At any rate it's the kind of strategy that probably only works when you deny using it. If I was in the Chinese leadership, I would likely not find it in China's interest to follow Friedman's suggestions - which are quite similar to the Bush administration's.

Below is a Youtube video of the session. although Chandler's opening gambit about boring Chinese leaders' speeches was edited out, along with some other parts of the session. The order of various exchanges has been moved around, and there is no translation of the Chinese-language speakers. The video was apparently shot and put online by a Chinese organization, runsky.com. The World Economic forum video page does not acknowledge that this video or any of the other session videos are edited. UPDATE (9/14): The WEF has now taken down the mysterioiusly cut/remixed version and posted the full uncut version.

(Photos courtesy of the World Economic Forum.)

Comments

[Gen Kanai]

Thanks for the incisive and frank commentary. I've read a number of the blogs that have been covering WEF Dalian and haven't seen anything as good as what you have here. Those of us who couldn't attend appreciate your insights.

[Abdurahman]

Thanks for commenting on the cultural differences, this is much neglected.

[China and I]

Amazing post, you did! Tell us more abou the WEF. What happened?

[Michael Turton]

A couple years ago a Chinese academic who advises the Chinese government on foreign policy issues told me that the best way for China to build global power, good will, and international credibility over the long run is to mind its own business, avoid criticizing the U.S. whenever possible, sit back and let the U.S. destroy its own power and credibility by itself.

Should add: and earn interest buying US bonds to keep the war going. Iraq is without a doubt China's greatest victory.

Excellent post, especially the observations on speaking. "It's what you do, not what you say that counts." Bingo -- yet so many westerners spend their days wondering why they can't make Chinese words and Chinese behavior align themselves....and it goes in the other direction -- Chinese under-read what westerners say....

Michael

[Tom - Daai Tou Laam]

I'd seen a brief mention of this in one of the Torygraph's blogs. Thanks for fleshing the story out a bit more.

[Michael Rank]

I love your explanation of why Ch leaders give boring speeches, spot on!

Michael

"... if you're already powerful, you don't want to act like there is a need to win anybody over. If you act like you care what people think of your speeches, you're admitting weakness. You leave it to loyal henchmen like Sha to say provocative things on your behalf, but avoid stooping to verbal sparring yourself..."

[Bill]

Quite thoughtful for westerners I must admit, but like every other China watchers, always the negativity. Imagine if Ron Paul gave a Chinese journalist the finger when he ask "what's with the American warmongering?". You guys would be cheering up and down! Well, business as usual here I guess, nothing out of the ordinary.

[edmond]

It's remarkable that people like Friedman get a platform for their ideas - he is, after all, just a journalist who's found a market for his work in the policy/op-ed space. Although he's written a couple of books that purport to be about economic development, he has no training or background in economics. Additionally, he has no relevant knowledge or experience of China.

So why are we even listening to him in the first place?

There seems to be a chronic excess of pundits such as him who have opinions about everything and expertise on nothing.

[Jay]

I don't agree with everything Friedman says but he's basically correct about China not pulling its weight - in fact China is more of a problem for the world than an asset so far. And the statement that China doesn't interfere in other countries and treats other countries as equals is hilarious. It doesn't even treat its own people as equals.

[Peter]

I love the hypocrisy of the China critics here and everywhere else. It was only five years ago when Americans worried that China would use force and not diplomacy in dealing with the world. In the last few years, China has been so successful in diplomatic relations around the world that it's has the West extrememly paranoid. Now we hear that Americans want China to use their muscle (or carry their weight) in the world. Can you imagine the sky-rocketing alarmists bells ringing if China were to do so. But of course that's not the "weight" they want China to bear. In other words, China has to do the dirty work of Americans. Essentially be blind obedient slaves of the West so if anything goes wrong, the West can easily point the finger of blame at China and have all the hate directly away from them.