Page 2 of 2 America's Opium War By
Dmitry Shlapentokh
extremely dynamic
society. But a close look easily reveals many
similarities with mandarin-run China.
Americans as Qing Chinese Similarly to the Chinese of that era, most
Americans believe that the US is the most
efficient society and has the best of everything:
economy, education, health service and military.
This
new
"Middle Kingdom" is the best of all possible
societies, surrounded by "barbarian" Europeans,
who have a bastardized, low-quality version of US
culture and need to work hard to achieve the US
level of perfection.
According to this
view, Orientals such as the Chinese are truly
barbarians, for they do not have democracy or
human rights, use slave labor, and are totally
unconcerned with "multiculturalism" and "sexism".
Nothing good could come from this society, and if
"barbarians" produce better and cheaper goods than
do residents of the "Middle Kingdom", it is only
because of "unfair practices".
The fish
would be the last creature to mention the
existence of water. The same could be said about
most average Americans: they would be the last to
see the profound inefficiency of US society. But a
fresh look would show how much inefficiency
permeates US society. One might say that the
inefficiency of America's mandarins is an
attribute only of the public sector (eg,
universities and state/local bureaucracies), and
that the rest of US society is working under
strict market rules, which punish bureaucratic
sloth. But if one takes a close look at US
business, one can see that the market does not
operate here.
An example is the US
airlines, which periodically lapse into
bankruptcy. In a capitalist economy, owners of
such companies should, if not go to prison, at
least lose their property. Today's management may
increase their salaries and benefits and emerge
from bankruptcy richer than before. A market
economy implies open competition, but drug
companies do their best to close the US market to
foreign drugs, on the grounds that these drugs are
"unsafe".
And workers do the same to
prevent the emergence of foreign workers as
competitors. Since in many cases the market
neither punishes nor rewards, the major
"marketable" trait in any big institution/company,
either private or public, has became not
productivity but "good citizenship" - to be a
nice, sociable fellow who faithfully follows
bureaucratic procedures.
The army is part
of US society, and has followed the same model of
existence. The Iraq war soon revealed that there
is nothing more important than to have numerous
soldiers on the ground and a constant stream of
willing recruits. Recruits should join the army
not because they have no other option - as is the
case with the majority of present-day soldiers -
but because it is one of the best-paid jobs with
the most enviable benefits.
Yet even the
petty brokers on Wall Street make far more money
than soldiers on the battlefield, who are
sometimes even compelled to buy their own body
armor. At the same time, trillions of dollars are
spent on expensive military gadgets that are
absolutely useless in the present war but enrich
the companies that produce them.
These
arrangements could be compared to the actions of
the Dowager Empress Cixi, who requested money
supposedly for building a Chinese navy but
actually spent it on a marble pleasure boat for
herself and her court. The Qing state had an
extremely inefficient military machinery that was
intimately connected with the entire arrangements
of the state, a fact that explains why a few
British vessels defeated what seemed to be a huge
empire with enormous resources. And the same model
can also explain why a few guerrillas are
defeating what seems to be the biggest military
machine in the world.
The post-Opium
War future Republicans defeated in the
recent US election have often stated that the
victorious Democrats have no viable program for
the Iraq war. And they are right. The Democrats
have focused almost entirely on the "tyrannical"
properties of the president and the war in Iraq -
as if these and not the economy, health care, and
education are what actually bother the majority of
voters.
The implication is that a
departure from Iraq would change US society for
the better or, at least, not have major
repercussions. This, of course, is an illusion,
held not just by Democrats but by the majority of
the electorate who have pushed them into positions
of power.
A victory in Iraq would secure
US access to oil and, even more important,
reaffirm its position as the global imperial
power. Defeat would be similar to the Qing defeat
in the Opium War. Far from being a minor episode,
it became a crucial turning point in modern
China's history, leading to the speedy decline of
the Chinese state. The same could be expected from
America's geopolitical default, or at least from a
strong "correction" of the United States'
geopolitical values, which would be immediately be
taken into account from Tehran to Beijing.
It could not only alter (possibly
radically) present geopolitical arrangements, but
also have an adverse effect on America's economic
position. And, of course, it would be a great
illusion shared by the majority - Democrats and
Republicans - that not only America's geopolitical
role (still abstract stuff for most Americans) but
its living standards and economic conditions in
general could be preserved without radical change.
Simply arguing that present US social/economic
arrangements cannot work indefinitely, and that
there should be changes, will have no effect.
Arguments do not work; for each argument
there is a counter-argument. It is pain that
teaches. It is the horrific reality of the last
hundred years of Chinese history that followed the
Opium War that convinced the Chinese, including
the elite, that they should turn to the West to
find the answer to the country's pressing
problems. The same could be said about the present
"Opium War".
It will take a long time and
much pain for Americans, and possibly for the rest
of humanity, before the residents of the
"Forbidden City" in Washington and, of course, the
electorate can understand that dramatic changes
should be implemented in society, especially if
these changes imply altering centuries-old
traditions of looking to the West, not to the
authoritarian/totalitarian East, to find the
answers.
Dmitry Shlapentokh,
PhD, is associate professor of history, College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences, Indiana University
South Bend. He is author of East Against West:
The First Encounter - The Life of Themistocles.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
