To Us, China's Getting in the Way. To them...?

Sunday's edition of The New York Times had an unusually large number of articles about China. Well, not so unusual when one considers the tumultuous events of this "sleeping giant." In one of my previous posts, I said something about how the younger Chinese generation will eventually learn to embrace and protest for democracy, something that they've been conspicuously absent at doing during this century. I still stand by what I say, but I'd like to extend the "eventual" timeline to another 100 years.

China's Loyal Youth portrays young Chinese individuals as materialistic, politically inactive, and dead loyal to China's bureaucracy and government. Through my personal observations, China's youth seems to be indoctrinated in Chinese nationalism ideology, so much that their parents are loathe to complain because, well, their kids are making enough money and getting good-enough jobs that there's no reason to complain about the lack of human rights, free press, and other civil rights. Therefore, the idea that they would sympathize with Tibet and the Dalai Lama seems almost laughable.

What does their apathy mean in terms of international relations? Yes, they are probably going to make up a huge sect of consumers as companies eventually realize that they can make just as much money targeting these Eastern hipsters. No, they're not going to come to some kind of liberal epiphany and start marching the streets of Beijing (unless their economy completely tanks due to an inefficient government and much, much corruption).

Actually, things (that is, society, everyday life...) will remain the same. Headlines such as these will continue to dominate international headlines, and China will gain an economic stronghold. It's easy, right? Of course, my predictions would only be accurate if China is a status quo state. And I think it is--nowhere in Chinese foreign policy does it dictate that China wants to acquire new territory, go into other countries and topple their government, or any of the things that once characterized empires.

Of course, for China to say that the Tibetan issue is only an issue of sovereignty is like saying that the Civil War was only about slavery. The indications that China conveys about Tibet are plentiful and multi-layered: It's about dealing with China's ascension into world power; it's about showing other states that they can assert power and be successful; it's about old-school ideology; it's about their way of ensuring an outdated foreign policy; it's about saving face before China's "coming out" party, one of the most pivotal events for them in the last century...

It will be fascinating to see what kind of dialogue the new U.S. President will hold with China. There's a chance that Pelosi, a staunch supporter for ending conflict in Darfur and one of the most outspoken politicians about China in Washington, will pressure the potential Democratic president to sever many economic ties with China, lest China gets its human rights activism together. There's a less likely chance that Pelosi's supposed urges will succeed with a Republican president. Let the battle begin ?

Whatever the U.S. or China may say about Tibet, the Olympics are bound to be an interesting event. And I'm not just referring to the athletics.