Guest blog: To bash or not to bash

Posted By Clyde Prestowitz Friday, November 26, 2010 - 7:04 PM Share

In
yesterday's (Nov. 25) Financial Times,
my friend Claremont College professor Minxin Pei commented
that "China may choose to do nothing (with regard to trying to rein in North
Korea) just to prove that the west cannot bash it and beg at the same time."

It wasn't
the question of China possibly cutting off its nose to spite its face that
caught my attention. After all, China may really not consider North Korea to be
or any danger to it at all. Rather it was the use of the term "bash" and its
ascription of bashing to the "West." Let me hasten to say that my comments here
are not at all meant as a criticism of Minxin who I am sure used the term
simply as a repetition of current usage and without giving it much thought. But
that in itself is significant as a manifestation of how extant this powerfully
loaded term has become.

Ask yourself
what bash means or what people would be trying to say if they called you a
basher. The word suggests a vicious, even irrational and probably gratuitous or
perhaps racist, attack on someone or some group or some country. And let me say
up front that I know this and am sensitive to it, because in the 1980s and 1990s
when I was first a U.S. trade negotiator with Japan and then an analyst of
globalization at the Economic Strategy Institute, I was routinely referred to
in the press as a "Japan basher."

In the case
of yesterday's article, the comment was in relation to the fact that China has
been criticized over the past few years on a wide range of issues including its
claims of sovereignty over disputed isles in the South China Sea, the ramming
of a Japanese ship by a Chinese fishing vessel, refusal to relax its
intervention in global currency markets and to allow its currency to revalue
significantly, reluctance to accept some degree of responsibility for
rebalancing the current, massive global trade imbalances, as well as its
refusal or inability to do anything about its North Korean allies' nuclear
proliferation actions.

Now, no
doubt, there are two sides to all these stories and China has a right to voice
its claims and to act or not to act as it sees fit. But surely other countries
may have grounds for their criticisms. China no more than any other country
should be immune from legitimate criticism. But this is, in effect, what
happens when we use start using the terms bash, bashing, and basher. Because
they suggest irrationality, hatred, and racism, they inhibit and obviate
serious and necessary discussion of important differences and issues. Are there
no legitimate grounds for concern about China's territorial claims in the
Pacific or about its currency and trade policies? Certainly the Federal
Reserve's monetary policies and U.S. currency policies were subjected to
withering criticism at the last G-20 meeting.

But this
only underlines another interesting element of phenomenon. "Bashing" is
something that apparently can only be done by the West, and really only by the
United States. No one calls China a U.S. basher when it criticizes Ben Bernanke
or the U.S. banking system. No one calls Germany a U.S. basher when it levels
criticism at U.S. economic policies.

The term
basher was first popularized by Washington
Post columnist Hobart Rowen in the 1980s when, in his passionate advocacy
of free trade, he used it to undermine the legitimacy of any U.S. response to
or even criticism of Japan's mercantilist, export led growth strategy of the
time. His tactic proved so effective that it was quickly adopted by the
officialdom and media of Japan and other countries wishing to deflect and halt
U.S. pressure on them for change.

It's
time to stop using this term in reference to debate with or about our
international partners. We should be speaking of "criticizing" rather than of
"bashing."

Clyde Prestowitz is president of the Economic Strategy Institute and author of The Betrayal of American Prosperity.  

OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:EAST ASIA, CHINA, GUEST BLOGGER, JAPAN, NORTH KOREA, TRADE
 

LIZMITCHELL

12:34 PM ET

November 27, 2010

Bashing

Very valid point as it relates to this double standard in the political and global scene. The term bashing, however, still fits in the context of the media, particularly blogs and the deluge of comments. There is a definite nuance of predictable criticism which surges whenever China makes the headlines with a political, economical or national event.

 

RUI

5:32 PM ET

November 27, 2010

Oh, there's plenty of bashing around

There's fair criticism, and there's xenophobic, ideological, irrational, hateful bashing.

Plus whenever there's a conflict of interest between China and any other party, "the West" reflexively sides with the other party before any actual facts have been considered.

E.g. Rare earths - the media claimed China was withholding shipment to Europe when it wasn't the case. The overall message was that China was using it for political leverage, when it had been trying to limit export for years due to other reasons.
China-Japan ship incident - the media sided with Japan for no apparent reason. There was a secret agreement between China and Japan that Japan would not detain any Chinese person and in exchange China would try to prevent people from going on the islands. Pure conflict of interest, so it seems unfair from the Chinese perspective.
Many more examples that I don't have time to get into:
China in Africa
Chinese companies investing in US, Europe, elsewhere
Chinese vs. Tibetans
Chinese vs. Uighurs

For a variety of reasons, "the West" doesn't like China. But when criticism is colored by sentiment, clouding their fair judgement, I'd call that bashing.

 

RUI

5:35 PM ET

November 27, 2010

Forgot to mention

Throw in environmental and climate change conflicts in the list.

 

TROPIC STAR

6:41 PM ET

November 27, 2010

Bashing...

Hi Clyde, hi everybody... Changing the name is not going to change the tone of the discourse or the conditions that are responsible for the problems. Loaded language like Paper Tigers, Backyard Blast Furnaces and William "the senator from Taiwan" Knowland and Generalissimo Chaing's five Time covers, it plays big in Beijing and plays big in Peoria. The overarching question is really how mendacious public diplomacy has become, and bashing is a subset of it. At least China is up front by maintaining a ministry of propaganda.

The user generated content model, like this blog and the comments all get data mined and might help contribute to some predictive analytics metric. But currency warfare, economic warfare are not soft power tools.

The reason it is not called bashing in Germany is because there is no contextually similar word in the German language, nor in France, nor in the major languages used in China. So even suggesting that these nations should take the "bashing" rap is part of the problem in and of itself since while English is the world language of business, creating a new politically correct word to replace bashing in the US media culture, doesn't mean it will stop the aggressions as channels for policy coordination become occluded and more unstable. Say good bye to the world of non-denial denial and say hello to the world of non-transparency transparency.

 

SLIGHTLY_OPTIMISTIC

6:13 AM ET

November 29, 2010

Marching to different tunes

"China may choose to do nothing (with regard to trying to rein in North Korea) just to prove that the west cannot bash it and beg at the same time."

This is part of a theme that appears in the New York Times, in an article by Paul Kennedy:

"Simply put, the post-1944 American-led international monetary system is slowly coming apart. That’s not really a surprise. A country of merely 4.5 percent of the world’s population and 20 percent of its gross product cannot forever carry the burden of having its currency represent 80 percent or even 60 percent of the globe’s foreign-exchange reserves."

"For a long while, many other nations within the U.S. political orbit accepted, and didn’t make a fuss about, the artificiality of the American currency position. But those were closely bound allies — Britain, Japan, Germany, Spain, South Korea. There seems absolutely no indication that today’s rising powers — Brazil, South Africa, India — have the same deferential attitude. As to China, well, it will never march to America’s tune. The real issue is whether America, because of its indebtedness, will be soon marching to China’s."

Washington is putting its faith in the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. But will other nations put the values that the US supports before GDP?

 

SLIGHTLY_OPTIMISTIC

6:45 AM ET

November 30, 2010

QDDR

The inability of the US to rein in North Korea is symptomatic of a much wider problem.

Hence the policy move towards multilateralism in the QDDR and in dealings elsewhere; "But will other nations put the values that the US supports before GDP?"

Incidentally, an editorial in the NYT last week effectively questioned the stance on the latest Korean incident:

"The attack on Yeonpyeong Island occurred after South Korean forces on exercises fired test shots into waters near the North Korean coast. We hope South Korea’s president is asking who came up with that idea. But the North should have protested, rather than firing on a populated area, wounding three civilians and 15 soldiers."

South Korea's president was apparently asking - the result was the defence minister resigned.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More