The great debate these days concerns the rivalries which are gripping the world in terms of influence, deterrence, military might and economic prowess. The debate sharpens when the discussion involves the two main players: The United States of America and China.
Good and knowledgeable writers
are spending a great deal of effort explaining to their readers––including the
ruling classes which are looking to be enlightened––what is unfolding in the
world on a daily basis. Unfortunately, the public square in the
English-speaking world has so deteriorated, you can no longer discuss even a
serious topic without being derailed by the prevailing state of intellectual
mediocrity, thus produce a shallow product where gravitas is called for.
To see that point with greater
clarity, we consider how three people familiar with elements of the same story
might tell it differently without any of them lying about the facts. If so, what
will make the narrations different from each other? The differences will result
in that each story teller will approach the story from a different angle: The
neutral, the negative or the positive.
The neutral example of
story-telling might go like this: The man looked up and saw an infant dangling
from a third-floor balcony. He ran to position himself so as to catch the
infant. The baby fell, the man caught it in his arms thus broke its fall, but
could not hold on to the child that eventually hit the ground and broke a leg.
The negative example might go
like this: The man looked up and saw an infant dangling from a third-floor
balcony. He ran to position himself so as to catch the infant. The baby fell,
the man caught it in his arms but was so inept, he failed to hold on tightly to
the child that fell to the ground and broke a leg.
And the positive example might
go like this: The man looked up and saw an infant dangling from a third-floor
balcony. He ran to position himself so as to catch the infant. The baby fell,
the man caught it in his arms thus broke its fall and saved its life. He could
not hold on to the child tightly enough to prevent it from hitting the ground
and breaking a leg, but that's a small price to pay for a life that was saved.
Two articles engaged in the
great debate concerning the rivalry between the major powers, show how the
writers, expressing themselves in the English language, preferred to conform to
the prevailing biases while presenting their arguments, rather than make a neutral
presentation and let the audience decide what to make of the story.
One article came under the
title: “How should the United States Compete With China's Belt and Road
Initiative?” It was written by Jennifer Hillman and David Sacks, and published
on March 23, 2021 on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. The other
article was written by George Magnus under the title: “China's Go-It-Alone
Five-Year Plan,” and was published on March 25, 2021 in Project Syndicate.
The Hillman and Sachs article
begins by faithfully (meaning glowingly in this case) describing what China is
doing internally and externally to shape the world of today and tomorrow. Then
came use of the adverb “however,” and the tone of the discussion changed to
sound as follows:
“However, the Belt and Road
Initiative's (BRI) risks outweigh its benefits. It undermines global
macroeconomic stability by lending funds to unsustainable projects, thereby
adding to countries' debt burdens. It tilts the playing field in major markets
toward Chinese companies, promotes exclusive reliance on Chinese technology,
and draws countries into tighter economic and political relationships with
Beijing”.
The truth is that none of
what's reported in that passage, is of great consequence. And nothing of what
China is doing today is different from what America and other Western nations
have been doing for two centuries. In fact, telling it like it is without
over-editorializing would have created a better incentive among the
English-speaking entrepreneurs, motivating them to compete against the Chinese
and score some gains. Unfortunately, the negative approach adopted by Hillman
and Sachs is not doing that.
As to the George Magnus
article, it is much less tilted toward the negative description of what China
is doing. Instead, it describes China's vision of future developments in a
neutral tone as seen in this paragraph:
“The phrase 'Five-Year Plan'
might conjure thoughts of production targets, but China hasn't issued that kind
of document in more than 20 years. The 14th Five-Year-Plan comprises a broad
set of economic, social, technological, and environmental objectives and
targets, intended to shape the behavior of local governments, enterprises,
institutions, and citizens. It is a far more comprehensive strategy that
reflects a growing emphasis on the link between the economy and national
security”.
And yet, despite that
commendable approach, George Magnus could not forgo the obligatory
liberal-democratic editorializing that prompted him to end the article in a
condescending manner, starting with the adverb 'but'. Here it is, “But, a
country at China's level of development has only one way forward: transparency,
openness, and institutional flexibility”.
Oh well. It's like they say: You cannot teach an old dog new tricks. Make that: even a well-meaning dog.