The article “The Serpent and The Dove” give me a special angle to review the history of America’s rising process and check the viewpoint about the US hegemony.

   Because of the protection from Great Britain, America need not worry her security. And the state founding fathers considered the commercial freedom, market open as the most important interests. So the policy and strategy is based on the consideration of commercial interests. Thanks to the brightness and industry of Americans and the God’s blessing, America realized and safeguarded her interests very excellent, and after the WWII, America achieved hegemony of the world.

   But what’s the relationship between realization of commercial interests and world hegemony?

   First, realization of commercial interests in one area and one department asks for the success in more areas and departments due to the nature character of expansion of commerce. America continuous and successful action in this realm makes her achieve economic hegemony finally in the early 20th century.

   Because of the expansion of economy, America needed stronger forces to protect her commercial interests all over the world and the most efficient way is to strengthen the military power. So in the process of commercial expansion, America developed a strong navy. Then showing off her great power in the tow world wars and got the military hegemony.

   Due to the enviable strength in military and economy, and the economic expansion, America-style affected more and more states and areas. Finally, the expansion of American culture helped build America’s culture hegemony in the world.

   Through the analysis above, I think we can define America’s hegemony as peaceful hegemony. Why?

   First, world hegemony’s handing over is a peaceful process. I mean there is no war between Great Britain and The United States. The fundamentally cause of the hegemony is concern and realization of commercial interests.

   Second, due to the importance of commercial interests, America highly views the economic relationship with the other countries. USA wants to protect her economic interests and commercial relationship with the other countries especially the countries like China, Japan, and Canada etc. If the next hegemony comes from these countries which have close economic relationship with America, I don’t think there will be war during the process of handing over the hegemony. The process will peaceful and smooth.

    Generally speaking, our Chinese have no reason to criticize America’s hegemony, because it’s peaceful hegemony. And finally it will be replaced by the other country peacefully.  

I am reading a book named “The History of Sino-American relations” written by a Chinese historian. Through this book and the text about Hamiltonean and Wilsonean, I get my own idea about America’s China policy.

Generally speaking, we can never find a clear strategic line from America’s China policy-making process. Actually, sometimes the self-contradictory China policy makes me puzzle. For example, when Bush Sr. came to power, most Chinese policy-makers and scholars believed Sino-American relations would be great improved, because this president had been in China for many years and familiar with China’s situation, but who can foresee the great setback of Sino-American relations after the 6·4 political movement in 1989. America was the first and most strict sanctionist among the western countries. And who can believe China’s statues turned from “strategic competitor” to “stakeholder” in the eyes of President Bush Jr. in less than four years. If we observe America’s China policy under a single angle as Hamiltonean or Wilsonean, we can never understand these strange phenomenons.

In America foreign policy is affected by many different forces. White House, State Department, congress and many other bureaucracies all take part in the process of foreign policy making. As president and Secretary of State, they should consider grand strategy and whole national interests of America. They stand for America, not Texas nor IBM, nor labor union. So generally speaking, when consider China policy, they often think and act as a Hamiltonean, more pragmatic and realistic. For example, Ronald Regan, as chief executive of California, he is an “anti-communist hero”, an absolute wilsonist. While being the host of White House, he followed his predecessors in the realm of China policy according the grand strategy against USSR. Congress sometimes exerts great influence on the US-China policy, because the senators comes form different states, backed by different interest groups and affected by many lobby groups, there are many different voices in congress, the voice from human rights groups, missionary groups, and labor unions, etc. So the congress seems more wilsonean in foreign policy making process. For example, when President Carter successfully built a normal diplomatic relations with Beijing, senators soon passed a law to confirmed relationship with Taiwan and forced Carter to sign it. When President Clinton wanted to give the most-favoured-nation clause to China, congress soon reminded president of the bad situation of democracy and human rights in China.

To some extent, president and secretary of state stand for the Hamilton-style national interests. Congress stands for the Wilson-style national interests and interests of different groups. Bureaucracies stand for the department interests. The foreign policies are the mixture of the demands of these forces. Generally speaking, when the president’s power is strong such as Nixon in his first presidency, the China policy seems more Hamiltonean. While if president’s power is weak, such as Nixon in his second presidency and President Ford, the China policy seems more wilsonist. But in Most of the time, the policy is compromise of these two ideologies.

SIX POINTS ABOUT DEMOCRACY

After seeing the film “Good Night, and Good Luck”, some strange ideas rise and some perspectives about democracy of mine were further proofed.

I don’t believe democracy.

First, democracy is undemocratic for the other ideology. French government forbids the Islamic students wearing veil. In America, there was “McCarthyism” in 1950s. Democratic governments treat communism and Islamism undemocratically. Ironically, America and some other western countries require China to treat the anti-government ideology democratically.

Second, the generalization of democracy is just a dream of nationalist in western world. They believe their ideology is the perfect and the only right. The foundation of democracy is individualism and liberalism. It’s not fit for the other areas. We cannot find individualism and liberalism in West Asia and Africa, because Islamism and Tribalism conflicts with them. We cannot find individualism and liberalism in East Asian society, because Confucianism in this area emphasizes collectivism rather than individualism and despotism in these countries have long history. Maybe in Latin-America we can find these two patterns of ideology, but disappointingly, what we see is a politically turbulence, economically unstabalization, and great gap between the poor and the rich. Maybe we should call it a unsuccessful example of democracy.

Third, democracy in non-western world is bogus democracy. These democratic regimes are not built on the basis of individualism and liberalism. They are unstable and just have crust of democracy. In Japan, Liberal Democratic Party can always win the election, and the change of political leader is not decided by the votes but compromise and bargains between juntas of LDP.

Forth, even in America, the foundation of democracy is unstable from time to time. After WWII, there was McCarthyism in1950s, and after 911, there was neo-conservatism.

Fifth, the validity of some other ideology is more than democracy in particular place and particular time. In other words, democracy as an ideology is right in particular conditions. I think there are specific criteria to judge the validity of ideology. The first is history. An ideology which survives longer and suffers more challenges is supposed more validity. Second, whether or not fit for the interests of the civilian and the development. If the criteria are right and rational, both Islamism in West Asia and Confucianism in East Asian are more validity than democracy.

Sixth, China can’t follow western world like a fool. Chinese should have our own judgment about ideology and political institution. There are no perfect ideologies or institution existing in the world. We must search for the most appropriate for China.

At last, I must claim that I am not a nationalist but a calm Chinese. I do not like the people who always indiscreetly criticize our institution and ideology. I do not like the people who always show off their own “courage” against government. If they really want to fight for Chinese and not just for showoff, try to take action in the internal-constitution and search an appropriate way for China.