POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY THE DAILY TELEGRAPH'S DANIEL HANNAN
DANIEL, YOU'RE SOUNDING MORE AND MORE LIKE 1950s AMERICA
'No, the worry is that China is a tyranny, and tyrannies are generally likelier to throw their weight about than democracies.'
First, this is a rather glib generalization that may seems right to many at first reading.
But is it?
You can't go very far back in history to cite instances since the kind of liberal democracy with which we are familiar is a fairly recent phenomenon.
The United States or Britain were not democracies in this sense until well into the 20th century.
What is the history of the US, UK, France, and Israel over recent decades, all of these making claims of democratic government?
War, war, and more war.
The point is there appears nothing about democracy that makes conflict with others less likely.
Second, China is indeed a one-party state, but it does not qualify as a 'tyranny.' If you will just check your dictionary, you'll see that China does not fit the definition.
China does not remain a communist state, two-thirds of its GDP coming from the private sector with many key Maoist policies having been abandoned.
Third, China is well along the path to becoming a democracy. She will achieve this the same way states in Western Europe did over the last 500 years.
Economic growth will produce a large middle class whose interests cannot be represented by an oligarchy or other limited-franchise form of government.
I actually think saying anything else reflects prejudice or misunderstanding. It's the kind of stuff we hear from the Republican right wing all the time.
The real concern for the world over China's future is whether a jealous and paranoid United States will permit the change to happen peacefully.
The Chinese are themselves aware of this, and they speak of guiding an aging America peacefully into its new world position.
