Between Capitalism and Leninism

I arrive in Beijing, China, the same day that the delegation headed by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner end their mission in this country. Two news items compete in the media about their visit.

The local media emphasizes the “success” of the bilateral meeting and announces that, in four rounds of negotiations, they were able to secure 67 agreements on economic matters, bilateral trade, investment and financial cooperation between both countries, and there will be a greater opening-up for the Chinese banks in the U.S. and for U.S. financial institutions in China: China has taken a huge step toward a more flexible exchange rate system in which the market plays a more important role. That is to say, it moves more toward capitalism. The U.S. loosens its restrictive policy on high-tech exports to China; both countries held substantial discussions on hot topics such as North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Although specific results were not revealed in any of the four actual topics, the main thing is that according to the heads of both delegations, relations between China and the U.S. have never been better.

On the other hand, in international circles, the central news has been the complicated negotiations on the future of Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, who initially found refuge at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. He returned to his home voluntarily; later he regretfully spoke about the agreement, and it seems that the issue will finally be resolved in a positive way for all the parties involved. That is to say, China does not decide to get out from the Leninist impasse.

The contrast, the manner of focusing the news about China does not surprise me at all. Before leaving on this trip, I was reviewing some recent books that have been written about this country and found that most of them put forth a point of view found not only on facts and their meaning; rather, they generally present a point of view that implies a confrontation between China and the U.S., or at least a ruthless competition between the second and first world economies. Worse still, it would appear that what is found more often are the views of best-selling authors.

Consider for example the titles of two books that have had enormous success in sales: China on the verge of collapse, says one book; when China leads the world, says another.

In fact, if the literature on the subject of China’s development and its bonds with the U.S., real or imaginary, has a constant, it would be this: that the success of one implies that the other has failed.

For some, China is going to bury the U.S. in a few years; for others, the U.S. will remain the leading economic, political and military power in the world, and China will enter into an age of political turmoil that will entail a tremendous economic crisis.

In the same sense, last week, the writers from the Financial Times who specialize in international themes also ended a visit to Beijing to participate in a discussion whose theme was this conflicting view on the future of both countries. For two of the British columnists, one of whom lives in Great Britain and the other in the U.S., “The rise of China means the decline of America.” From the other side of the debate, for columnists who live in China, whether expatriate or born here, the economic development of China cannot continue while the country might not open itself politically toward democracy.

Which of the two sides is right? I do not know. All I know is that I will spend the month of May in this vast and complicated country learning and often commenting on what I observe.