Saturday, February 11, 2012

day by day in China

Another day, another disgrace from one of the most oppressive societies on earth. Yet more evidence, too, that economic liberalization can exist quite comfortably with political repression and authoritarianism. As if you needed reminding.

Twenty-two years ago today, Nelson Mandela was freed. South Africa was freed by South Africans, with the help of a global campaign of isolation, education, disapproval, and sanction. China, big and populous and poor but powerful, will take a greater effort. That effort is required every day, with constant and principled denunciation. The crucial  message to the Chinese people is that China's future is China's. The question for all of us, as a polity and a government, is whether we can support the self-determination of a people that is truly self-determining, and not dictated by the supposed benevolence of foreign powers. The credibility to oppose authoritarianism must contain within it the rejection of our own authority. There is no path to freedom that travels through Western paternalism, the coercion (whether soft or hard) that has marked all of our liberatory efforts. Only by abdicating our own claims to be the directors of history do we contribute to the genuinely principled goal, the universal suffrage of all mankind.

6 comments:

Greg Sanders said...

I'm a bit confused by the South African example. Wasn't the campaign of isolation and sanction include heavy use of soft coercion?

I think it's quite reasonable to say that the use of sanctions was not paternalistic because it was done at the request of the South African people made through widely supported opposition leaders.

A boycott in and of itself isn't soft coercion. An individual, organization, or country is not obliged to buy from anyone. I suppose you could argue that a sanction regime applies soft coercion to own nation to enforce a boycott. However, at that point I think I've gotten far enough away from your original argument that I'm putting words in your mouth.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the US has any ability to have influence among the Chinese peoples outside of soft power (cultural influence via immigration, open media, etc.) Military and economic means can always be blocked by the Communist party apparatus. -K.

Anonymous said...

P.S. By now, it's almost like Yglesias is trolling you on purpose:

"Loving unique local restaurants is great, but in life it's ideas that scale up that change the world."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/11/chipotle_vs_the_burrito_snobs.html

-K.

Freddie said...

I think my point, Greg, is more about soft coercion as it pertains to the threat of violence. Boycotts, condemnation, diplomatic isolation: I'm not at all opposed to them as tactics. I am opposed to violence, military power, and espionage as a means to regime change even in the case of terrible regimes. If that makes sense.

Fake Herzog said...

Yay, "universal suffrage", what could possibly go wrong, especially in a place like South Africa? Long live the struggle...

Greg Sanders said...

Freddie: That's perfectly reasonable, I don't think soft coercion is a term of art, I just made the wrong assumption about what soft meant.

As is, your post makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.