Quick word about the debate between Jim Mann and David Lampton over the thesis of Mann's new book The China Fantasy. From the IHT:
Mann's thesis, adamantly rejected by many, though not all, experts on China, is that the American policy of what is called "engagement," pursued with some fits and starts by every administration since Richard Nixon's in the 1970s, has not delivered on its main promise, which was Chinese democratization.
I haven't read the book, so by all rights I should not criticize. (But I will anyway because I am an ardent engagement supporter, and also because I can't help myself.)
Put aside for the moment the question of who has been promising what with respect to engagement with China; this argument sounds really familiar to discussions about legal reform, more specifically IP law.
It usually goes like this: "Why do we keep giving China a free pass on IP enforcement instead of criticizing them for failing to do [insert something here]? Things have not improved in the area of [insert it again], and our acceptance is just validating the current practices of [insert one more time]."
What's my answer? Usually it's pretty simple. I point out the tremendous progress that has been made in China and call for patience in allowing legal reform and institution building to run its course. Some people buy in to that, others want immediate results.
For Mann, political reform is the big issue:
But because Mann's book accuses China policy makers of a kind of broken promise, it seems to have generated an especially angry response on the Internet and in such specialty journals as The China Quarterly, which published a lengthy exchange between Mann and David Lampton, a leading figure on China who is also at the School for Advanced International Studies.
Mann also touches what may be a sore point in stressing that, with a few exceptions – Nathan [Columbia U.] one of the most prominent among them – China scholars and policy makers have tended to be rather silent on Chinese human rights abuses, though many of them say that they bring these matters up forcefully with Chinese officials in private.
If you are still reading this, go to the debate in Foreign Policy between Mann and David Lampton on this issue. Great stuff.. I am sympathetic to Lampton's argument, of course, but I suppose Mann would accuse me of bias because I am an FDI lawyer. (He takes Lampton to task for his consulting gig with US law firm Akin Gump.)
Here's where I think Lampton wins the argument: "there are economic, security, and intellectual gains to be made from working together; these require no apology." This is a classic realist argument and it works. Is the US in any way worse off for its engagement with China since 1971? I think only anti-globalization folks would answer in the affirmative.
[Disclaimer: Lampton was my grad school advisor and one of my favorite professors at Johns Hopkins/SAIS. Ironic that Mann is also at SAIS at the moment.]