When China rules the world

The dire consequences of the coming shift in global power


As an academic and journalist working throughout East Asia, Martin Jacques has had a front row seat for the past decade on China’s economic and political emergence. The British author’s latest book is titled When China Rules the World.

Q: We in the West spend a great deal of time discussing China’s rise. But we seem to resist the next logical step, which is to consider how things will change around the world when China becomes the world’s pre-eminent economic power. Why is that?

A: I think that the world has been so used to American hegemony, and you had a recent period of American history under Bush which actually postulated exactly the opposite scenario—that we were in fact on the eve of a new American century. So we’re just not versed in the profoundly different thinking China’s pre-eminence will require. More than that, we have failed to understand that we’re not just talking about economic change. The impact of China’s rise is going to be at least as great politically and culturally as it will be in economic terms.

Q: So paint me a picture, in broad strokes. If, as some forecast, China’s GDP surpasses that of the U.S. in the next 20 years, how will China behave on the world stage?

A: Initially, I don’t expect it to behave hugely differently. Even in 2050, when it’s projected that the Chinese economy will be twice as large as that of the United States, China will still be, in terms of GDP per head, a lot poorer than the United States. But history’s very important in the behaviour of nations, and China comes from profoundly different civilizational coordinates than the West; it has a different history from the top dogs than we’re used to over the last 200 years. I think that the West is going to feel extremely disoriented by the world that is in the process of now being made. We’ve so long assumed that the furniture is our furniture, the language is our language, the sports played are our sports, the values are our values, the skin colour is our skin colour. My son’s 10, and his generation is going to grow up in a very, very different kind of world.

Q: You put a lot of focus on the fact that China is not just a nation-state but a civilization. Why is that an important distinction?

A: Consider the characteristics that give the Chinese a sense of their own identity. It lies in the language, the Confucian values as they apply to society and governance, and part and parcel of that is the notion of the state as family. Central to that is the centrality of the state in its role as the guardian of civilization. These things are civilizational characteristics, not the characteristics of a nation-state.

Q: How is that going to affect China’s relations with other countries?

A: If we want to try and understand what China’s going to be like, then the best place to start looking is East Asia, because that is China’s own region. China’s culture has had a major influence on the whole region in varying degrees for thousands of years—most obviously in the case of Japan, Korea and Vietnam. It’s a very sophisticated culture from its language to its literature to its food. These are elements of what we’ve termed soft power, and Chinese soft power is going to be hugely influential in East Asia in the future. There’s also the pure arithmetic of it, which is that with a population of 1.4 billion people, China dominates the region. The region accounts for one-third of the world’s population, and because China’s so large—both in terms of geographic expanse but in this case particularly population—there’s a huge imbalance between it and all the other countries within the region.

Q: That inequality is an important theme in your book. You predict, among other things, a return to the old “tributary” system in East Asia, in which surrounding countries supported China and served its ends.

A: Yeah, I doubt the wording will be the same—they won’t use the term “tributary.” But I wouldn’t be surprised if aspects of the system came back. It survived, after all, for many thousands of years and only disappeared at the end of the 19th century. The other thing to remember is there are now large Chinese minorities in Southeast Asia in particular, in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia and Thailand. Chinese civilization has a powerful centripetal quality to it. Wherever they are, for instance, the Chinese will eat Chinese food, and they don’t necessarily lose their language in the second or third generation. They have a strong sense of being Chinese and identifying with the Middle Kingdom as the centre of this phenomenon. So these elements will, I think, come together to not simply place China at the centre of the East Asian economy, but to set the terms of the whole region’s emergence. Another point is that China will have a very hierarchical view of the world, because the Chinese are very hierarchical in their mentality.

Q: Yes, and I get the sense that this is a proverbial elephant in the room. Until I read your book, I had only a vague idea of how big a role racism and ideas of cultural superiority play in China’s culture. You describe a very retrograde strain of prejudice that is literally based on the hue of one’s skin.

A: This is my greatest single concern about China’s rise, because those kinds of views are very difficult to change. The most difficult problem the Chinese are going to face, I think, is trying to make any sense of [racial and ethnic] difference. I mean, 92 per cent of them think of themselves as of the same race. While this is clearly not true—the Han Chinese are in fact descended from many different races—it gives a kind of biological reason for Chinese unity. And you can see it in their attitude toward those within China’s borders who have not been integrated in this way. The Tibetans or the Uighurs in Xinjiang province, for example, are regarded as needing to be helped up to the level of the Han Chinese. It’s a patronizing and very assimilationist attitude.

Q: I thought Mao tried to suppress those sorts of ideas.

A: Yes, but they have never gone away. What’s even more striking about this is China’s had such a bad time since the Opium Wars in the mid-19th century until 1949, what they call the Century of Humiliation, when China clearly had a terrible time in all sorts of different ways, losing territory and facing abject poverty. Yet somehow this attitude, this sense of Chinese self-confidence and superiority, has survived that period, as well as the period since 1949. It’s a very remarkable characteristic.

Q: You have had personal experience with Chinese discrimination. Your wife, Hari, was Indian-Malaysian and she died nine years ago in a hospital in Hong Kong, having received what you felt was inferior treatment because her skin was darker than that of other patients.

A: Yes. She died as a result of Chinese racism in the hospital. Her death led to a long campaign which eventually resulted in the first anti-racist legislation ever in Hong Kong. That’s why I think about these questions a lot, because I’ve had to not just come to terms with the personal pain—the terrible loss—but I’ve had to try to understand it from my head rather than my heart. As a white person, I’d never had to think about race in my own country, because I’d never suffered discrimination. Certainly what happened to Hari sensitized me to the problem, and made me think about it in a way most writers are never forced to do.

Q: Why don’t these attitudes get talked about, inside or outside China?

A: Well, no society likes to talk about its own racism; this is a universal characteristic of the dominant races in countries. As for why it doesn’t get talked about outside China, well, the people who’ve written about China are mainly Westerners—and the Chinese, of course. Generally, Western academics are white, so it’s not something that they think about. There are a couple of black academics who have written about China, and they’ve engaged in discussion about race because they’re very conscious of how it moulds a society and how it structures human relations. The trouble is that the way in which countries behave has been interpreted in terms of diplomacy and international relations theory. International relations theory doesn’t talk about race.

Q: But we, as a Western civilization, have dedicated considerable energy—at least within the last three decades—to trying to address racism in our own countries.

A: I think there’s a much greater awareness. I mean, Obama’s election in America is a vivid illustration of how attitudes have changed. But the whole American behaviour with Guantánamo and their treatment of Iraqis during the war has had a powerful racial component to it. People don’t talk about it that way, but it is a racial component.

Q: Let’s switch to politics. You talk about China offering an alternative political model to developing countries—something different from the blend of democracy and free markets prescribed by the United States. What would that model be?

A: Well, for one thing, it takes a more favourable view of the state as a force in society and the economy. Unlike in Western societies, the state really has had no competitors in China for a thousand years. It didn’t have to negotiate with the church, or the merchant class, or the judiciary, or an elite. This reinforces its authority, and the Chinese state has had this ability to reconstruct itself and remake itself, such as in 1949, even again in 1978. I would argue that since 1978 it has undergone a particularly important reconstruction. I mean, this has been an absolutely brilliant economic strategy that has lifted Chinese fortunes since then. The guys that have been running this economic reform policy have been extraordinarily talented about the way they’ve done it. This is an example, I think, of the strength of Chinese statecraft, this ability to be able to elaborate and implement a strategy.

Q: You seem pretty comfortable with the idea that democracy isn’t as important as other issues facing the Chinese government just now. But if China really is going to be—for all intents and purposes—ruling the world, surely it should understand that political freedom is one of the most important things to Westerners, if not the most important thing.

A: What I wanted to try and explain in the book is that we shouldn’t simply see Western democracy as a universal. It needs to be considered in its proper historical and cultural context. No Western country was, by the standards that we use now, democratic when it went through its process of industrialization. Our Industrial Revolution in Britain started in about 1780 and lasted into the 1840s, and it was only much, much later that large numbers of people began to get the vote. As you know, women didn’t get the vote until well into the 20th century. This is a very important point. When we lecture other countries now on why they should be democratic—well, we weren’t when we were going through that same historical stage as they were. Now, this doesn’t mean that countries don’t become more open after their economies take off. China’s modernization will be accompanied—is being accompanied—by a process of growing openness, representativity, and much greater flows of information. You know, the Internet discussions, apart from a subject like the role of governance by the party and Taiwan, are open, hard-hitting debates. There aren’t many no-go areas.

Q: I’m not sure that view squares with the facts. China just announced that they want all of the personal computers sold in the country to have filtering software that makes it easier for the government to censor electronic information.

A: It’s certainly true that there’s all sorts of controls, but it’s a huge transformation from what it was, and [the Internet] is much freer than the press is.

Q: Still, if we’re talking about China setting an example for other countries, the prospects for democracy do not at this stage seem very promising, do they?

A: No. China, as it is at the moment, does not believe in the democratic model. It doesn’t strongly polemicize against it, but it certainly doesn’t advocate it. So this is going to introduce a very new dimension into global arguments, because this has been a very fundamental Western value. It’s important to note, though, that when China argues its position globally, its emphasis is not on democracy within societies but democracy between societies.

Q: What do you mean by that?

A: China thinks the international system—from the WTO to institutions like the IMF—is extremely undemocratic because it’s dominated by a small minority of the world’s population—i.e. the West plus Japan. So it has a different agenda on these kind of questions, which also is a very influential agenda because the developing countries recognize and support these arguments. We’re moving into a world where former colonized countries like China and India will become the big players. This is going to shake up the global value system. So I’m not arguing personally against democracy, but I’m trying to imagine what the world’s going to be like when countries have different imperatives, different histories, and therefore different priorities.

Q: Can institutions like the IMF and the World Bank survive as they are if China is the economically dominant force in the world?

A: There are two possibilities. One is that they are reformed, profoundly, so they’re no longer dominated by the United States and European countries. If China’s the biggest economy in the world it would have to have the biggest voting power in the IMF. Why should it stick a load of money into the IMF if it’s got only two-fifths of the voting power? The other possibility is that reform happens slowly and reluctantly, and these institutions wither on the vine. What we may see then is the emergence of new institutions which reflect the power, wealth and priorities of the new big powers—in the first instance China, but maybe in collaboration with India and Brazil and, in time, Indonesia and so on.

Q: Either way, the days of the IMF demanding privatization or other reforms in exchange for money are probably over.

A: Absolutely right. I’ve been arguing that era’s coming to an end because of the intensity of the international financial crisis. But there are already examples of this happening. Angola, for example, was offered a big loan from the IMF with strings attached and the Chinese came along at the last minute without any strings. Angola told the IMF to keep their loan and accepted money from China.

Q: That’s just one example of its growing interest in Africa, where Western powers lack presence and credibility. How do you see its relationship with those countries playing out?

A: It’s a very unequal relationship, because the African countries are cast in the role of supplying raw materials, and they’re much poorer. Their populations are much smaller, they’re fragmented amongst themselves and their state apparatus is much weaker than the Chinese state. People talk about neo-colonialism, but I wonder whether Africa might be drawn into something more like the tributary relationship. This could be repeated in other regions, Latin America possibly, and Central Asia.

Q: What about China’s military aspirations? A think tank reported recently that China has become the biggest defence spender in the world, short of the U.S. Should we be scared?

A: There are imperatives of being a major power, interests that go with it that will be the way in which China tends toward acquiring the same kind of hardware, interests, and behavioural characteristics as the United States. But again, the best way to understanding how a great nation will behave is to look at its history, its own experiences within its own geography, if you like. While Europe comes from an extremely exciting militaristic tradition—a long history of what I call internal war, followed by expansion into the Middle East and then on a global basis with colonization—China hasn’t been like that. It did engage in a long period of expansion, but it was a continental-based expansion. So I don’t think we should expect the Chinese to be expansionist in the same way as the Western powers. I mean it doesn’t even have an aircraft carrier yet. None of this means that China’s not going to be a problem in various senses, including militarily. If you look at the invasion of Vietnam in 1979, that was a classic kind of action against a tributary state, actually.

Q: Has it it become more subtle since then? I’m thinking of their recent trade agreements with Southeast Asian countries, which suggest a very multilateral and benign approach compared to, say, that attack on Vietnam.

A: Yeah, definitely. They’ve made an extraordinary shift, actually, from the beginning of the ’90s, showing a very flexible diplomacy, and it has completely transformed the relations between Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia. They’ve outmanoeuvred Japan and the United States. The Americans, in the late ’80s and ’90s, had been pursuing APEC, which sought to define Asia as Asia-Pacific—i.e. the U.S., Canada, Australia and East Asia. I think that model has been totally outgrown.

Q: I guess the question is whether the soft approach is going to last.

A: One of the great advantages the Chinese have is time is always on their side. Why is time on China’s side? Because it’s growing so quickly, and with that big population, they can afford to play a waiting game. The historical trend for as far as the eye can see is toward growing Chinese strength. You remember what Deng Xiaoping was supposed to have said when Henry Kissinger asked whether he thought the French Revolution was a good thing: “It’s too early to say.” That to me is a very good insight into the Chinese mentality.


When China rules the world

  1. The odd thing about this discussion, like most discussions about ascendant nations, is the unquestioned assumption that democracy is superior to and more free than other forms of government. This is very questionable.

    The other odd bit in this interview is the last paragraph: "Why is time on China's side? Because it's growing so quickly, and with that big population, they can afford to play a waiting game. "
    China's population growth is going to fall off a cliff within two generations. They've limited family sizes below replacement level and with sex-selective abortion the new generation is disproportionately male. The math is obvious yet for some reason this author doesn't even mention it.

  2. The odd thing about this discussion, like most discussions about ascendant nations, is the unquestioned assumption that democracy is superior to and more free than all other forms of government. This is very questionable.

    The other odd bit in this interview is the last paragraph: "Why is time on China's side? Because it's growing so quickly, and with that big population, they can afford to play a waiting game. "
    China's population growth is going to fall off a cliff within two generations. They've limited family sizes below replacement level and with sex-selective abortion the new generation is disproportionately male. The math is obvious yet for some reason this author doesn't even mention it.

    • The worst form of government, except for all the others!

    • Despite the dispropotionality of China's gender levels, it's still going to take a while before the population really drops down. After all, two generations is mostly like 50 years, and that's enough time for a lot of change. The one factor about that is problematic is, psychologically, males will feel the pressures of competition. Socially, this could lead to a number of problems, and I have a feeling that rape crimes will go up dramatically over the next few years unless the policy is changed.

      As for your opinion in democracy, I think I agree with you. China's current political structure does not hinder the lives of the people that they protect. And I CAN say this because I am Chinese and I have lived in China and US both for quite some time.

      • Regarding democracy, you have misunderstood my position. I despise China's current political structure. It is not free and does indeed hinder the lives of its people, most obviously in terms of religious and family freedom.

        My point was not intended to praise China's current system, but rather to criticize the unquestioned premise held by both the interviewer and the author that democracy is the government for which China should strive. Even interpreting "democracy" loosely to mean "representative government" this is still a debatable premise, so it would have been a better interview (and probably a better book) with other possibilities considered.

    • sex-selective was a thing of the past in the 80`s and90`s…..china had changed but surely not your brain.

    • You may be thinking in terms of growth within China. Look beyond existing borders of Main Land China and consider the International birth rate of Chinese.

  3. Canada, as we know it, will be gone within 50 years. Traditional Canadians, especially Quebecers, simply aren't reproducing. However new Canadians are as well as first nations Canadians-2.2 and mennonites, Amish and a few other Christian groups are doing an excellent job in reproduction. The old exhausted, liberated, liberal, Canadian of European background has set the stage for it's own replacement.

    • who will play hockey…a bunch of small chinese players….hmmm interesting

      • Hockey will go the way the women's curling, Chinese won, and then, nobody wants to watch it anymore, because, ping pong will rule the day.

    • uuuum you are very dumb so your canada will be gone when it is said that our population is still growing yes 50% of the growth is from immigrants but that is a good thing we would be a worldly place and we may be a good model for the rest of the world when it comes to racism it won't be perfect but it will be a good example.

    • It's hard to want to reproduce under the western postmodernist view: It's the parents' fault for bringing the kids into the world and the parents 'owe' it to the kids to justify their existence. Once 18 the kids are no longer under the parents' legal purview and are then free to do as they wish with no obligations or accountability to the parents. Even while living under the parents' roofs the kids have their individual rights to their choices and views and who's to tell them what is right or wrong. They sass the parents or act out like holy terror but can't be spanked, and when they make a right mess it's the parents' job to clean up after them. One wonder, under these relativistic postmodern times, why people want to breed at all, if not for nascent biological urges.

  4. He is an expert on China and doesn't know that it was Chou Enlai and not Deng Xiaoping who make the famous reply to Kissinger.

  5. China funded Robert Mugabe and his war back in the 70s. The Chinese dragon is ravanous and Africa has the raw materials needed. Canadians are one of the largest groups of Investors into Africa. I wonder if they are seeing a Chinese influence?

  6. For millennia, Han Chinese (the Zhong Guoans) have viewed the periphery as populated by barbarians and it is a mark of Chinese history to “civilize”, “pacify” and “sinicize” (bring them under Chinese cultural, economic and genetic influence). Tibet, Tangut and Nan-Chao were independent kingdoms until “recently” by historical standards. Of course, Chinese are aware of ethnic minorities, but they will use these “quaint people” as tourist attractions (e.g., Shangri-La). Chinese society is convinced of their cultural superiority (remember the big opening show at the Peking Olympics) and they have long-term economic goals (US treasury bonds). They need natural resources (gas and oil) to achieve their goal of becoming the dominating global power. Now the whole world (including vancouver lol) is considered the "periphery" by the Chinese and the ex[pansion process will continue for the next 1000 years. Ultimately history is always written by the “conquerors” , whoever they may be!

    • Are you not familiar with the assimilation programs in Canada as well as the US? I think the aboriginals received much worse treatment compared to the ethnic groups in China.

  7. "Q: Let's switch to politics. You talk about China offering an alternative political model to developing countries—something different from the blend of democracy and free markets prescribed by the United States. What would that model be?

    A: Well, for one thing, it takes a more favourable view of the state as a force in society and the economy. Unlike in Western societies"….blah blah blah.

    Yo schmuck, the word your looking for is FASCIST. And surprise surprise, the Chinese are the most racist and chauvinistic punks on the planet. Who'd a thunk it? No worries though, the facts ot the matter are that china is a slave empire built on a sea of sand. To the extent that they are experiencing growth now, the primary catalyst has been WalMart and the American consumer. No Americans buying shoddy/cheap/easy credit goods, no more Chinese growth. No growth, no peace. The Chinese have a historical habit of murdering their leaders when they can't make it rain. We live in interesting times. LOL

    • So many people on this board are so ignorant. Is this a truly world class example of literates representing Canada? Even though this article may seem pro-China, you have to consider that this person actually HAS BEEN to China first of all and resides there. This author shows an example of his understanding of the thought process behind Chinese civilization unlike the rest of you morons. China has in the past 200 years faced unquestionable turmoil due to the imperial powers like Britain, Japan, USSR, USA. The only difference is that China ended up enduring and surviving and made it's way back to the global stage. If you do not think that is remarkable then you are just bias. Never in history has a 3rd world nation advanced and progressed and this fast a rate. The CCP has transformed a backwards, poor, war-torn country into a leader in this globalization age. Please refrain from talking nonsense like "kumarright123", "william", they come off as lame ducks.

  8. The pinyin spelling is Zhou not Chou and give the guy a break; it was an interview!

    • When Zhou En Lai obtained his first foreign name, it was spelled "Chou", not "Zhou". Just like Mao Tse-tung is well-known to the world long before the Chinese communist changed the spelling system and spelled chairman's name as Mao Zedong.

  9. The best form of government is Rule of Law, organized as a Republic. Democracy is a component of that best of systems. Read Guy Sorman's (he's French) book "Empire of Lies." He says the Chinese leaders, since imperial times, have fed the West a line of bull about Chinese are different, can't use, don't understand, don't want freedom and democracy. And as pointed out above, the Chinese will ensure that those on their periphery will see and do things the Chinese way, too, or else.


    • The best (one of them) is in the interview: "What I wanted to try and explain in the book is that we shouldn't simply see Western democracy as a universal. It needs to be considered in its proper historical and cultural context. No Western country was, by the standards that we use now, democratic when it went through its process of industrialization. " and I will add Samual Huntington: "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do".

      • Thats an overly simplistic view. Why was the West superior in applying organized violence? Simple: They had better technology. Muskets and locomotives are superior to spears and dogsleds any day.

        Now, how were they able to acquire said technology? They had a religion and a set of values that fostered a culture of freedom and ideas. And it is from those ideas that advancement, progress, and technology sprung. Sure, it came with organized violence as a side-effect, but the world is undoubtedly a better place today because of it.

  10. Interesting POV, but fails to address demographic issues , corruption, evolving legal systems and finally effect of the communist dogma on the model of state "guidance". Can the state and it's leadership (however clever and well educated) make better longer term decisions than a truly free market. Can you ignore human nature, the desire for power ? This is not even a Singapore model. Democracy enables nations to survive great stress, challenges and endure. Fascism, socialism with a strong state…not so much. Will the system be able to stand the stress and complexities of a modern growing economy and deliver sufficient employment and increases in the standard of living ? The Chinese people are happy to cede individual rights, as long as they can make money. When they can't, or don't want to compete with the "insiders" within the government..how will they react ?

    • Great comment and lots of points, I just say one. The rise of China is not a rise of socialism, but rather the application of free market ideas. Chinese economy is much freer than you think., that combine with state power (Obama is emulating that with great bank and car industry bailout), gives them advantages.

    • yes John i agree with your insight especially the cultural diversity and economic issues as they relate to western society, democracies aside, the answer lies within the pollution of corruption, greed and individual rights ad infinitum…when human nature stares us in the face of all we disdain and fight for…is human nature Western or Chinese? maybe therein lies the power

  11. Stop complaining, folks.

    When China rules the world, we will all adopt much tastier and healthier food. Bonus One.

    Gawky Western women will work hard to be slimmer and lither, like the beautiful Chinese. Bonus Two

    Isn't that progress?

    It will be far worse when INDIA rules the world…….

    • Kumar,

      You are extremely rude and offensive. How dare you make such a comment about women who have naturally larger builds and a lot of positive attributes. Imagine someone writing that about people's skin being too dark or the skinner women not having breasts. You have no class and no sense!

    • Tastier yes… but healthy??? Most of the food in Southern China is fried.

    • Hahaha.

      much tastier and healthier food?
      I must admit some Chinese food are tasty but when it comes to health… Chinese food uses too much oil.

      beautiful Chinese?
      you would think there will be a lot of beautiful Chinese girls because there are so many Chinese people in the world… but although people have different tastes… I have never seen a beautiful Chinese girl…

      When China rules the world, I'm moving to Mars. The world will come to an end

  12. Come on, Mr Jacques. Have a sense of reality.


    The world will gang up against China to make sure of that.

    China is big, sure. But the US plus Japan plus India plus Indonesia plus Vietnam plus Korea plus Russia (forget flabby Europe) is more than enough to contain the Chinese.

    I regret that, myself. I'm Indian, but do want better food and slimmer women in the West, which needs Chinese rule.

    • Racism exists regardless of culture and race because it is in fact a human emotion of fear and uncertainty. We all live on this planet and there is NO SINGLE owner. If China has the potential to come out on top, that will certainly change the status quo on the Anglo-saxon dominated world in which we live in now. Again the People's Republic of China is only 60 years old, you have to take that into consideration. The CCP inherited a history and culture more than 2,000 years old and has transformed the nation overnight. Do you think the leaders of China or the Chinese people are that stupid? It is only your loss to underestimate and if you think I'm brainwashed, I can only remind you to think of yourself first.

  13. Further problem for China:

    The Han population is going to decline sharply over the next two generations due to the one-child policy. The minority nationalities. especially the Muslims, will greatly increase proportionately (they don't have to follow the one-child policy).

    So China will be crippled by an large and explosive Muslim minority.

  14. >"The Tibetans or the Uighurs in Xinjiang province, for example, are regarded as needing to be helped up to the level of the Han Chinese. It's a patronizing and very assimilationist attitude." "This is my greatest single concern about China's rise, because those kinds of views are very difficult to change."

    That's hilarious considering that's the exact kind of condescending, patronising attitude the West protrudes throughout the world and he's lecturing China…

  15. A: Yes. She died as a result of Chinese racism in the hospital.

    What exactly is "Chinese racism"? Seems counterintuitive to accuse people of apparent racism by framing said racism in a racial tone.

    • JR, your right. They let a friend of mine father die because he didn't have any money. Just told the family to take care of him in the ICU. He was Chinese. So it is hard to call them raciest when they don't even care about their own poor.

  16. the sooner chinese are considered human beings like you and I and not aliens the better. No more us and them.

    we are all together as on race

    • Funny because Chinese are the most racist. Now that's scary.

  17. Krmarright:

    Are you telling me Chinese people practice a different kind of racism from everyone else? Why frame by race in the first place, as far as I know racism is racism regardless which ethnicity practices it. I've never heard people say my wife died because of Canadian racism.

    • JR Blake:

      No, I'm just telling you you practice a different kind of English than any literate person.

      My meaning is crystal clear: by "Chinese racism" is meant that the Chinese can be racist, just as "Chinese steel" does not mean a different kind of steel, but steel belonging to China in some way.

      Geddit now?

  18. China is different: a culture needs resources, it over-exploits those locally available and looks for them less locally, over exploits those to the 'chagrin' of the locals assimilated, usurped or destroyed; now it looks less locally. In the process of adventurous exploitation it identifies those assimilated, usurped or destroyed as less powerful, less cultural, less important, backward, worthless… I only describe the attitudes of every past civilization on earth: USA against African and North American Natives; Australia against its Natives; England, France, Nederlands against African and Asian and Oceanic Natives; Spain against South American Natives; Portugal against African and Asian Natives; Germanic/Frankish tribes against the Romans; Romans against the Europe and the Mediterraneans… How far back should I go?

    The Han-isation of Chinese controlled territory and its economic allies elswhere is no different… Racism, why not? It worked and still works in the US, Europe and any country you care to mention. Culture: We probably eat as many soybeans cole crops, etc as they; they have their literature, we have ours; we have our technology and have given it to them: just like the USA usurped British tech 1-200 years ago, and Europe usurped Roman, and Roman usurped Greek and Levantine tech. Hierarchy works fine too. Go to work an exert your Magna Carta, US Bill of Rights, or Droit d'Homme, Okay, so you get a sixth of your life to watch television and pay your ISP for online advertising and catalogs, don't be silly, consumerism isn't freedom. Religion? Mine is always better than yours, even if I have none. What is so different? The language? Mine is better than yours, so what.

    Grow up people, China will take over, it has more people and money to throw at us (what ever the competition) than we at them, plus we're afraid to die (except virtually). But different? I think not.

    Maybe we should analyze ourselves, see what we did, to avoid the fate we delivered on our vanquished. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. It may be western civilization's turn to repeat it.

  19. china will destroy itself; a civil war is inevitable, the rise of the poor within china. The chinese are many but they hate eachother. I forsee a civil war in the next 20 years, and then Russia and India will take advantage and conquer china.

  20. The author as many in these days can not say that something is better than other… So he thinks that saying democracy is better is not appropriate… Well, go ask to the millions of chinese that have been murdered by this communist regime if the think dictatorship is so great… The author of the article is very biased…

  21. WAKE UP…. China's submarine fleet is larger than the entire British Navy, China consumes almost 50% of the worlds resources (bought with money made by an undervalued RMB), 90% of all river water in China is not fit for drinking, #1 polluter, #1 in number of cars on the road (and little to no pollution control), In 10 years they will control the majority of the worlds resources, Most buildings in China are built for a 25-35 year lifespan and wasteful, spend billions each on the Olympics, Shanghai expo and Asian Games, built the worlds largest TV tower and train station, building the worlds largest system of high-speed trains,will build trains into Iran, Russia and Cambodia, Burma, if they cannot get resources at their price they buy the mines, But yet neglect basic health care, the poor, and all the while taking billions from the world fund as an undeveloped nation. All of this data was taken from "The China Daily" – not from western sources.

  22. what all this fails to realize is that the chinese are embracing western culture you only have to see how they want cars and new fashion and all the cunsumer mentallity of the west we still have what most of them want except maybe our work ethic

  23. I just wanted to mention briefly about the author's experience in Hong Kong. We have to remember that Hong Kong was a colony of Britain not long ago, and there was definitely a sort of resentment towards British subjects, and just westerners in general. Being a Chinese myself, I think the concept of racism in China has its roots from the 1800s, when the Western world invaded China and caused great pain in Chinese history. You can't really blame us for thinking like that.

    • assuming that you do not have racist opinions, you make a good point.

  24. Racism, has roots much deeper in China than the British colonialism. Hans and wegers(sorry for my spelling) have had some bloody fights. Tibetans, westerners… not that it isn't the same where ever different cultures and races interact. But yes, I can blame China. It is wrong no matter what country and what race. It is better to say "it is true" and work on the problem than it is to try to defend it by blaming others. In the US WE WERE WRONG. Slavery what a repulsive idea.

  25. How does the NWO fit in to this scheme of things concerning China. Have the Chinese even been introduced into the equation?

  26. Why is this such a bias article?

  27. I just finished reading this book.

    I highly recommend it.

  28. JR. Blake:
    "What exactly is "Chinese racism"? Seems counterintuitive to accuse people of apparent racism by framing said racism in a racial tone. "

    Is there any need to explain what Chinese racism is? I think it was made quite clear in the article — it's the racial discrimination against anybody who does not look Han. Like the man's wife, who, although being Asian herself, was not given the treatment that she ought to have received, simply based on the darker tone of her skin.

    I completely agree with what he said: that the biggest problem China will face during its hegemony is breaking down its superiority complex with regard to its race and culture.

  29. Relax, China will never be able to rule the world under this repressive regime.

    • China has had an emperor for over 5000 years, and until they hit a bad patch in the 1500s, the highest GDP in the world.

      Now….they're back.

      So give the western arrogance a rest.

  30. When China rules the world, the world will come to an end.

  31. i hope the upcoming super power countries like china think about mankind and respect of life! that is my fear! this world should be led but a brain power that hold a bit when it comes to respect to mankind and right of life! imagine countries that really suffered in hands of other powers if they will continue suffering again ! blood everywhere like in Africa please Mr. power think on your concept and put equality and good life for all your goal ! please!

  32. Oh man if Steyn ever comes back he's going to have a field day: the Muslims AND the Chinese are trying to rule the world and overthrow Christianity!

  33. Great interview. Mirrors some of my experiences with new Chinese Canadians and offers insights on why their behavior. As to the future belonging to China, I have the following thought…their future successes may not materialize if free-will and individualism are not adopted soon. I'm reminded of the milestone innovations created in the past century. Mostly by individual free thinkers allowed to create at will…Fleming, Banting, Edison, Ford, Einstein just to name a few. If China does not change to allow for this type of creativity to flourish, it is destined to remain a factory nation depending on others to provide new mouse traps. Remember, the wheel as mass transportation was not adopted in China until introduced by outside sources. Well after Europe. BTW, the kites and gun powder stories are played out.

  34. China is rising so fast because these current Chinese generations are very hardworking, unlike modern westerners who are lazy and don't come anywhere close to their forefathers

  35. I am so glad that one scholar can jump out to say something nice about China’s future from a western world, this is so unusual but so amazing! I am so proud of my country and I am continuing to put more effort to be a good Chinese and a good global citizen overseas.