The bottom line for the government is their continued economic growth, and they need normal relations with the rest of the world in order to maintain it, but the contradiction that poses with the hate propaganda they keep spewing is bound to blow up in their faces at some point.
The so-called "hate propaganda" does blow up in their face. Not dramatically, but enough that it's becoming more common for the government to issue calls for restraint in the media than to try and fan nationalistic flames. Nowadays the Chinese themselves are carrying the torch. The boycott of Carrefour here was allegedly started over phone text messaging, as well as it’s ongoing support by people adding “(l)China” to their MSN names. This is grassroots action, not government nudging. When these grassroots efforts start to put political pressure on the party, or strain international relations the Party asks people to stop.
It also did so in 1999 after the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by American forces. When the government didn’t do anything hasty or drastic, popular outrage was expressed in letters to newspapers and on the internet. “The [Americans] know that our government policy is one of merely lodging ‘fierce protests [qianglie kangyi].’ Premier Zhu….Our government’s weak stance has created a distance between itself and the people….You are so capable…and we need you….But without the ‘people’s confidence [minxin]’ how can you lead China’s economic construction!” Surprisingly critical of the government wasn’t it? Instead of the typical support of the government, this kind of expression asks it for action. As a response Hu Jintao gave a speech which urged everyone to get back to work and study. So they (mostly) did.
This is a change from 1996 when the CCP didn't ask the people to do anything, they just outright banned China Can Say No for arbitrarily criticizing party policy. Of course, this is after the book was approved by party apparatus, like all paper publishing is, to this day in China, and after it instigated a lot of nationalist zeal against Japan and the US. Earlier that same year, Japanese boyscouts built a lighthouse on the Diaoyu islands and got China into a flurry. The government response then was just as decisive. They dispersed demonstrations in the street and took away students access to the internet for 10 days when students took their proesting there.
Patriotic actions require guidance.
The public must be dissuaded and prevented from organizing spontaneous meetings, demonstrations and protests.
The publicizing of activities by…printing or distributing documents, or using various means of communication is prohibited.
As you can see by comparison with the 1990's, the policy appears to be changing. This could be a sign of the political reform that the party sees as necessary, or in the words of Peter Gries whose work I borrowed heavily from in the above paragraphs, a sign “The CCP is losing its control over nationalist discourse.” So, if an incident were to "blow up" it wouldn’t just be in the face of the CCP but the people too. Both are responsible for the current nationalism.
With regards to the other part of the original quote, I disagree overall that there’s any threat to China’s economic interests, despite the fact that nationalism and anti-foreign sentiment is on the rise. The government might be vacillating, but I still think it’s at the reigns and not so stupid to jeopardize China’s rise by letting university students actually piss off the world. Besides, whiney students would have to do a lot more than boycott Carrefour for the world to turn its back on Chinese industry and markets. Never underestimate the power of money, or the degree to which the West can write off the views of Chinese people.
No comments:
Post a Comment