IMO, China will never "become an enlightened leader in the
Pac Rim politically, economically and racially" under the rules and systems that exist in the world today.
There are two principal lines of reasoning for this IMO:
1. Internal
The Chinese are too much of "single individualists" for China to become a great power. Patriotism only surfaces at times of adversity in China, and then it's mostly rabid ramblings by idealists. In times of economic prosperity (we have to go back to the 17th century now), politics are barely tolerated, the preference is to build family prosperity. This ingrained psychology has not changed among the Chinese - either those in China, HK, or the Chinese diaspora globally. Maybe in the next 2-3 generations for overseas Chinese immersed in different societies and cultures.
2. External
Historically, when China is unified and strong, it is inwardly focused - this by definition renders a strong China to be a very temporary phenomenon. A strong China that is outwardly focused (or simply the prospect of one) would scare the living daylights out of the rest of Asia (and the world by extension). Historically, China has rarely practised hegemony for long. The Mongols and the Manchus created the last two expansionist thrusts - once their administration become dominated by Confucian bureaucrats, China looked inwards.
Thus, my hypothesis is that unless the Chinese psych changes radically, or an economic wealth system can be found to accommodate the current Chinese culture and psych, a strong unified China is a practical impossibility - it is just too big and ungovernable, in sheer numbers. The former option may be good for the world, I don't think I care to contemplate the latter - definitely bad for the rest of the world. Same reason why the rest of Asia would barely tolerate a strong Japan, and Asia will never tolerate a strong Japan if there were 1.2 billion Japanese......
Best rgds,
Steve Yeo.
|
