Farewell Xixian
Deng Xiaoping's leadership can be fairly credited with dragging China into the modern era after the horrors of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution. With Mao's personality cult in mind, Deng implemented new rules within the Communist Party to ensure that no single ruler could attain the same level of power. This week Xi Jinping undid that legacy.
The Communist Party has recommended that the key presidential limit (a maximum of two five-year terms) be scrapped. It's absolutely clear that the country's legislature (due to meet next week at the Chinese National People's Congress) will
rubber-stamp the new policy. It leaves Xi with an indefinite horizon beyond 2023. This is a watershed moment in not just Chinese, but world history. Xi is not Mao, but the effort to undo Deng's (uniquely Chinese) checks and balances is a step backwards.
Fleeting disagreements
Xi's decision triggered a rare outbreak of public criticism which was promptly obscured. A state-run publisher came up with a novel way to praise the power play; explaining it as a necessary step to "ensure people live happier lives". In typically overzealous style,
Beijing's censors scrubbed the words "disagree", "personality cult", "Xi Zedong", "lifelong" and "shameless" from the web. However, the most ludicrous moment came when censors removed any mention of George Orwell's novella 'Animal Farm' (reaching whole new levels of self-referential irony) and even, temporarily, the letter 'N'!
Dissent often takes on
imaginative and coded forms in authoritarian countries. A common image on social media is Winnie the Pooh (a sly physical allusion to Xi), this week an image made the rounds of the cartoon bear hugging a honey-pot with the headline "Find the thing you love and never let go". Xi's new authoritarian direction hasn't been lost on anyone.
Leaving the past
Those proclaiming the end of history certainly didn't foresee China striding boldly into the global arena of trade only to then take a sharp illiberal political turn. Trade liberalists have often describe their economic agenda in not just economic or political, but also moral terms. Their assumption has always been that a globalised economy also has an inherent democratising influence on society. But with China's ascendency in global trade (and institutions like the World Trade Organisation or International Monetary Fund) it may be time to discard that assumption.
American protectionism
In the local parlance America not only 'won' the Cold War but also then promptly began shaping the world in its own image. Free trade deals became canon. But now President Trump is backing away from the global economy at a rate of knots. Hopeful whispers of America rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership have been smashed by Trump's latest salvo in his promised trade war with Beijing. At a press conference the president announced a 25% tariff on foreign steel and a 10% tariff on imported aluminium, taking even some of his own advisors by surprise.
The Dow Jones reacted predictably with a 500-point (2%) drop. American industries that use imported metals (like car manufacturers) swiftly voiced their protests. While China has dumped surplus steel in America for a generation, this latest reaction is difficult to explain.
US steel manufacturers aren't collapsing under the weight of cheap Chinese products, in fact the major producers are in strong financial positions. The secondary and tertiary effects of the barriers will likely leave local industry worse off; hence many congressional Republicans are
lobbying against the import tax. In fact, George W. Bush's steel tariffs in 2002 cost the country up to 200,000 jobs.
Overseas the backlash has been resounding:
China, the
European Union,
Canda,
Brazil and several other major economies have announced retaliatory tariffs and restrictions. This at time when Washington is attempting to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement in its favour and to reclaim a trade surplus with China.
While Trump's tariff announcement may be more reflexive than considered, it still goes against both the letter and the spirit of trade liberalisation. It also casts light on the other side of the coin: that democracies can retreat from the globalised economy just as promptly as autocracies can.
It's telling that even Francis Fukuyama himself believes that the liberal international order is now under threat.