Time to Step Our Game Up

Much of the coverage of President Obama's visit to China this week has reminded me that many in this country still view China through an outdated prism.  Americans see China as many things: a burgeoning economic titan, a source of cheap labor and manufacturing, a communist dictatorship with a bleak human rights record and a zeal for censorship.

But what is often ignored is how the Chinese people see China.  The majority see their country doing very well, with an economic transformation providing opportunities unthinkable a generation ago.  David Brooks noted this week that "eighty-six percent of Chinese believe their country is headed in the right direction"!  They see that China has a legitimate claim to deserving its traditional name as the "Middle Kingdom", or center of the world.

This is even though China's Communist Party has only provided incremental political liberalization for its people despite an embrace of modernization and globalization.  Far from being a problem, the country's economic success has only emboldened its rulers and entrenched them in their positions.

Anyone who's been hoping since the end of the Cold War that Western-style democracy would come to China should realize that China will continue to go its own way.  To me it's a silly question of semantics whether to drop the prefixes "potential" or "future" in front of "superpower" to describe China.  Just note that the one undisputed superpower, the United States, is a debtor to China.

Anecdotally too, I've walked around the Pudong area of Shanghai and thought to myself "this is what the future looks like".  That assessment, back in 2004, seemed primitive when I spent a week in Hong Kong last year, and was positively staggered at the cleanliness and efficiency of the city, their impressive new airport, the beautiful new bridges, and the sleek, intuitive MTR subway system that blows away the creaky NYC subway and even my beloved DC Metro.  (If there's one pressing need I wish was the top of our country's priority list, it's the infrastructure, stupid!)

Of course, the U.S.'s major economic strengths--the fostering of innovation, commitment to free markets, and the best higher education system in the world--continue to make it the key player on the world stage.  Nonetheless, data about income inequality or our country's struggling public schools, to name just a couple examples, should convince anyone of the need to step our game up.

How to do so is worthy of discussion in a future post.  For now, I'd recommend reading Michael Porter--famous to business school students and consultants everywhere for, among other things, developing the "Porter's Five Forces" framework--who has the best succinct analysis of what we need to do that I've come across: "Why America Needs an Economic Strategy".

Necessary Freedoms

This morning I was reading a highly thought-provoking column by David Brooks asking whether the success of China as an economic power validates the collectivist social model as a viable alternative to the West's individualistic model.

Coincidentally, this afternoon at work an argument broke out between myself and a couple co-workers about China's system of government. One argued that China's government is acceptable since it works for the majority of its people, while another conceded that China's model had successfully been able to create economic growth and generally make life better for its people.

While I certainly have my beef with China's authoritarian system of government and the methods by which they have enforced their rule, my biggest problem is that they deny their people the liberal freedoms that I believe are integral and the right of every person to enjoy. Regardless of China's economic productivity and the increasing standards of living their people are enjoying, they are an illiberal society that represses the individual.

It's the same problem I have with North Korea, Putin's Russia, and Iran. It's not a problem unique to autocracies and totalitarian regimes either--take Singapore for example, which is what Fareed Zakaria once termed an "illiberal democracy"...

I've never read East of Eden but I've long been familiar with and loved a quote from that book which perfectly encapsulates my viewpoint:

"This I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about."

-- JOHN STEINBECK

The most precious thing we have as humans is the space between our left ear and our right ear--we have control over our thoughts. No external physical force can limit or alter them. So it should not be a goal of government, even for the sake of stability, to try and repress the individual.

We in the U.S. don't live in a perfect society, but we've done a relatively good job at balancing the welfare of society and the rights of the individual. The rights we enjoy--things like free speech, an independent and vibrant press, etc.--stem from our culture's commitment to freedom of belief. It is that freedom which makes our society better, because it enables us each to more completely express our humanity.

Finish Your Homework!

The popularity of the "flat world" idea and the notion that China and India will be eating our lunches in the not-too-distant future rank among the reigning themes discussed over the past few years. During this time, Thomas Friedman's book, Bill Gates' analysis of the American brain drain, and worries about outsourcing have permeated the popular consciousness. On the flip-side, counter-arguments have emerged in recent months which claim that America's preeminent status is not in jeopardy. See, for example, David Brooks ["The Nation of the Future" ($), 2/2/06] and Robert Samuelson ["A Phony Science Gap?", 2/22/06].

While I'm not one to turn alarmist from a few anecdotes about Beijing or Bangalore entrepreneurs, I do think that there is something to be concerned about here. The most important lesson on this subject that I have taken away comes from a story that Friedman relates:

"When I was growing up, my parents would tell me 'Finish your food, people in China and India are starving.'

I tell my kids 'Finish your homework, people in China and India are starving for your job.'"

Innumerable factors currently stand in the way of either China or India outstripping us, but one thing is clear: there are a lot of people in both of those countries that are out-hustling us Americans. While for now they may only represent a minority of their population, more of them are springing up daily to take advantage of increased opportunities.

For a taste of the radically different work culture in those countries, check out this recent Fortune article on Infosys, the Indian software services company. The talent pool is staggering--1.3 million applicants for full-time positions last year, and only 1% of those were hired. The new hires receive rigorous training in state-of-the-art educational centers which house rooms like the "Gordon Moore Room" or "Jeff Bezos Room". Captains of industry, it appears, are to the outsourcing industry what Kelly Clarkson is to the American public--the real Idols.

For now, the lure of higher salaries and brand-name jobs in the U.S. may draw a lot of the immigrant talent pool, as it did with my parents 25 years ago. But with increased prosperity and the prospects of "boundless growth" back in their native countries, how much longer will those smart foreigners keep coming here?

I'm willing to believe that the American optimists are correct when they assure us that we still do produce enough engineers and scientists, that because our country is second to none at fostering an innovative and entrepreneurial environment, and because we are a service-oriented economy anyway, that we can remain successful in the New Economy. But does that mean we should nevertheless continue with business as usual, not worrying about the fact that the rest of the world is working night and day to whittle away at our lead? I don't think so.

Better finish that homework.

Google, China, and "Do No Evil"

Disappointing news from Mountain View, CA today, as Google announces that the Chinese version of its search engine (debuting Wednesday) will adhere free speech restrictions at the request of China's communist government. The AP reports:

Google agreed to omit Web content that the country's government finds objectionable. Google will base its censorship decisons on guidance provided by Chinese government officials.

Examples of objectionable content could include information about the Tiananmen Square massacre, Taiwan, Falun Gong, and the Dalai Lama.

In Google's defense, a company executive replied:

“While removing search results is inconsistent with Google’s mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission.”

Necessary evil? It's debatable. I've blogged about this topic before in connection with Yahoo! and Shi Tao, and realize there are no easy answers. But what makes this news all the more disheartening is that it flies contrary to the company's famous and long-standing philosophy of "Do No Evil." One of the chief aspect's of Google was its reputation as a white knight of industry that led by example. On Google's homepage, you can look up their corporate philosophy, which they sum up in a list of "Ten things". The list, by the way, includes the following:

4. Democracy on the web works.

6. You can make money without doing evil.

And my favorite:

8. The need for information crosses all borders.

CB Archive: "In China, 'Business as Usual' is Bad" (Sep. 19, 2005)

In China, "Business as Usual" is Bad

The big story of the day, of course, is North Korea's decision to scrap its nuclear weapons program. Elsewhere, in Afghanistan, a moderately successful election was held despite Taliban threats and security concerns. Amidst the reports of these twin triumphs, however, is the story of a Chinese journalist recently sentenced to 10 years in prison for publishing a summary of the Communist Party's handling of the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacres.

What makes this case unique is that the Chinese government enlisted Yahoo Inc.'s help in using Shi Tao's private email account as evidence against him. On Sunday, the Washington Post was blistering in its criticism:

"Over the past two decades, many have argued -- ourselves included -- that despite China's authoritarian and sometimes openly hostile government, it is nevertheless right to encourage American companies to work there. Their very presence has been thought to make the society more open, if not necessarily more democratic. If that is no longer the case -- if, in fact, American companies are helping China become more authoritarian, more hostile and more of an obstacle to U.S. goals of democracy promotion around the world -- then it is time to rethink the rules under which they operate."

-- WASHINGTON POST editorial (09/18/2005)

Earlier this summer, I was appalled to hear that Microsoft had cooperated with the Chinese government by making the words "freedom" and "democracy" banned on the Chinese version of the MSN Spaces blogging tool. From personal experience, I already knew that Google and Yahoo searches conducted in China were subject to filtering. Cisco Systems has already helped the Chinese government set up the most sophisticated Internet monitoring system in the world.

American companies are helping a repressive regime tighten control over its people. Why? As Anne Applebaum has noted, "If this isn't illegal, maybe it should be." She brings up the IBM-Holocaust connection to suggest that the companies enabling China today should think twice. In pursuit of the bucks, Microsoft, Yahoo, et al., have struck a devil's bargain that is at odds with our own national interest.

Legality aside, the immorality of it all is disgusting. We should be pushing for the increased liberalization of China, not helping to reverse it. In the future, China should not be able to impose anathematic conditions on our tech companies' services. Take it as is, or leave it, thank you very much. I'd sleep better at night knowing that we were not contributing to the setback of democratic progress in China. Just ask Shi Tao.

The World in 2020

On Friday, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) presented "Mapping the Global Future" (full text), its latest report offering predictions for the state of the world in 2020. Among the highlights:

- Asian Ascension

In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the “American Century,” the 21'st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and India, comes into its own. A combination of sustained high economic growth, expanding military capabilities, and large populations will be at the root of the expected rapid rise in economic and political power for both countries.

• China and India become major economic powers
• Japan challenged to reevaluate its role
• North Korean crisis has come to a head
• Russian influence important but limited

- The Global Economy

Asia looks set to displace Western countries as the focus for international economic dynamism—provided Asia’s rapid economic growth continues.

• World economy 80% larger than in 2000
• Average per capita income 50% higher
• The U.S., though still the single most important power, will lose ground to China and India
• China's GDP will exceed every Western country except the U.S.; India's GDP will equal or exceed all European countries

- New World Order

Informal networks of charitable foundations, madrassas, hawalas, and other mechanisms will continue to proliferate and be exploited by radical elements; alienation among unemployed youths will swell the ranks of those vulnerable to terrorist recruitment.

• Political Islam has significant global impact
• Democracy in former Soviet Union and Southeast Asian republics could be undone
• China/Taiwan or India/Pakistan issues could lead to one side taking preemptive military action and resulting in all-out war
• Al-Qaeda has been replaced by a numer of equally dangerous splinter groups
• Bioterrorism is the biggest security concern

The NIC considered four possible "futures", each having the potential to be realized:

• "Davos World" - globalization and the growth of China and India lead to a world not dominated by the West
• "Pax Americana" - the U.S. weathers global changes and maintains its hegemony
• "A New Caliphate" - a political organization of Islam challenges the West
• "Cycle of Fear" - concerns over security cause "large-scale intrusive security measures...possibly introducing an Orwellian world."

* * *

What does this all mean? Well, despite it being easy to get lost in gloomy speculation, the good news is that the rise to prominence of Bollywood will inundate the globe with sappy, melodramatic love stories full of song and dance. ("An expanded Asian-centric cultural identity may be the most profound effect of a rising Asia.")

Seriously though, the growing importance of Asia is hardly a surprise to anyone. I don't doubt that U.S. unipolarity will diminish as nations on the rise like China and India tap into the well of world power. Still, the U.S. will be at the forefront of all the major movements to come, helping to shape world affairs. Says Jessica Matthews (in the von Drehle article I link to below), "We're still best in the world at adapting to rapidly changing circumstances. No other nation takes disruption in stride the way we do." Phew!

Of the four scenarios presented by the NIC, I see the first and second as most viable--the most likely outcome may be a mix of the two. I have enough faith--for now at least--in common sense and an American's dedication to liberty that I don't see 1984 becoming a reality for us. The U.S., in my opinion, can and will win the war against Islamist extremism. We will do so not just through military force, but by demonstrating with the help of moderate Muslims that democracy offers people a better future.

The biggest threat to all this, of course, is what the NIC described in its third scenario--the formation of an Islamic caliphate that, through its religious and political authority, could mobilize Muslims across the globe into religious extremism. Bad news for us: the report warns that "[a] Caliphate would not have to be entirely successful for it to present a serious challenge to the international order." Furthermore, "[t]he proclamation of a Caliphate would not lessen the likelihood of terrorism and, in fomenting more conflict, could fuel a new generation of terrorists intent on attacking those opposed to the Caliphate, whether inside or outside the Muslim world."

We have our work cut out for us so that we can head off such a political organization, however unlikely its formation now seems. The entire mindset and cultural views of a generation of Muslims must be confronted. Radical elements of Islam are the 21st century equivalent of the Communist threat to the West. The task we are facing is difficult, but doable if we make the right policy decisions. Leading by example, we must show the people of the Middle East and elsewhere the benefits of rejecting extremism. It can be done, and I have every confidence that it will be done. I'm looking forward to the next fifteen years--it'll be one helluva ride!

Further Reading:
"The Yikes Years" - David von Drehle, (Washington Post Magazine, November 2004)
"World War IV" - Norman Podhoretz (Commentary, September 2004)