You said "I have lived and worked in China for six years. I have to tell you also that I am no economist. However, sometimes generalists like me find it easier than the specialists to see the big picture".

I beg to disagree, although I would also define myself as a generalist on matters concerning China.

I do not see how an authoritarian nation can possibly be better than a democratic nation with thee latter obviously more appropriate to finding the right balance between economic, social and environmental issues, never mind the folly of comparing the power struggle between the US and China.

As for your comment on expensive holden cars, there is always a need to make sure that workers earn enough to actually be able to buy them.
Sure the West is still rich, albeit with much higher debt levels, but I expect the issue of wealth generation versus consumption to define growing trade tension between the West and china in coming years as the trend towards freer trade will be tempered once again.

A brave, and timely, article Mr Hennessy. Although the language is at times a little too "Today Tonight" to make it bulletproof.

Historically, governments have been principally concerned - whether benevolently or oppressively - with their own citizenry. Sweden built a highly internally-focussed, predominantly welfare-based system, while North Korea developed its internal focus by shutting its people off from the rest of the world. It's the way it always has been.

For exactly this reason, the "developed" nations have over the centuries been perfectly happy to keep their own people busy and prosperous, without any serious thought about other countries. Whether it was the one-sided trading of the British in India, or the post-war spread of US businesses across the globe, little attention was paid to "balance" or "fairness".

The only reason we are now quibbling about China's approach to building its economy for the benefit if its people, is because it hurts. But it hurts only in a way that Europe and the US have "hurt" other economies in the past.

Chris Lewis, I think, misses the point just a little.

>>I do not see how an authoritarian nation can possibly be better than a democratic nation with thee latter obviously more appropriate to finding the right balance between economic, social and environmental issues<<

"Better"? "More Appropriate"?

These are terms that would sound extremely self-serving - and probably pompous and self-righteous as well - to Indians, Chinese, and probably most South Americans and Africans too.

Nor is it a matter of "colonial guilt", although it is perfectly normal to carry just a little of that around, given our rather privileged histories.

It's simply "what comes around, goes around", and it would be smarter to devote our attention to coming to terms with it, rather than sitting in a corner whingeing about our ways being "better" or "more appropriate".

Good article. I'm in full agreement Brian http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9991

Regards
Peter Coates

These matters concerning China and the US will lead to different opinions. I make no apology for expressing disdain for China's political system and openly support Western interests.

In reality, however, protectionism wil rise further and the US will become less tolerant to China's bahaviour by the day. That is my opinion. How far we go is a matter for debate, but
China's rise will not go on uncontested given its disregard for the rules.

With all due respect Brian, you're just as wrong as you are right.

I've lived in China myself. I support your arguments in terms of economic policies - frankly, I think governments do whatever they can to support the living standards of their citizens. So in regards to it being hypocritical to criticize Chinese mercantilism I'm with you all the way.

As for social issues, I disagree. Whilst I concur with other commentators such as Greg Rudd who point out that were the CCP to collapse it would lead to a power vacuum being occupied by crime syndicates as was the case in Russia. This would be bad for everyone. Everywhere.
However, just throwing your hands up and saying "we can't really criticize" is rubbish. That gives those who do wrong carte-blanche to do whatever the hell they like.

China does a lot of things that annoy the west. A fair number of these are good decisions by China, particularly economic decisions, provided they advantage Chinese citizens.

However, a fair number of those decisions aren't made to advantage citizens, they're there to advantage those wielding power and insulate them from change. Some degree of criticism is needed in all societies. It keeps things honest and it provides incremental change along the way.
After the Google incident, the Chinese government commented that it had a responsibility to "shape public opinion". Frankly, I've always believed it was the other way around.
Consider the wealth disparity in China. It has the highest gini index in Asia aside from Nepal, and it makes the US look positively egalitarian.

Brian, if you can access it, read Rowan Callick's brilliant piece on China here. By far the best feature piece I've ever read.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-east-was-red/story-e6frg7e6-1225779432478

It details how things are really run in the higher echelons. Consider the fact that all the most powerful companies are owned and connected to management and that the separation of the judiciary, media, legislature and executive are non-existent.

Chis,
With all due respect your views are very class and culturally biased/based.

I would argue the whole thing is relative. A CCP leader once responded to criticism of the regime by saying " How many people in your country ? What do you think the Chinese peasants would prefer food or western democracy. We can't afford both."
Like it or not he was right. Can you imagine trying to plan for 2 billion Australians?

No government either side can do that for 20 million effectively. Parliament is a bit like herding male feral cats! They spit,snarl, claw each other to bits for dominance and achieve very little important else.

As for us controlling the excesses of power groups, unions, Corporations, special interest groups etc, we're as much at the mercy of the above as the Chinese peasants are to the CPP apparatus.

Ever tried fighting a major Corporation? they simply bury you or their bad actions in mountains of law fees and tactics.
One only need to look at changes in the 'intellectual property' laws and who benefits to see my point.
One woman for 12 songs down loaded received $250000 judgement against her. (justice, fairness?) The Big corp said they were sending a message to the population.
NB none of any of the win money went back to the artists.

As I said before it depends on where you are as to how much freedom you actually have....it all a matter of degree.

NB I don't agree with the CCP behaviour either.

We simply can't claim the moral high ground and finger point.
Mind you it won't stop the US arrogance and bombast from trying though. The other shoe (our debt) hasn't dropped yet....but it will!
I would further argue that the differences between the two systems is simply a matter of temporary degree

TurnRightTurnLeft: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-east-was-red/story-e6frg7e6-1225779432478

Thanks for the link. One comment stood out: "This process has been reinforced by the state control of the airwaves and the internet. The party has found ways to transform the new instruments of liberation, as they were originally conceived -- the mobile phone and internet -- into instruments of control."

The problem I have with that statement is just about every Chinese expatiate says "yes, but everyone knows how to get around the controls".

One of those two statements must be an exaggeration. Either the Chinese does indeed successfully control everything its citizens see and hear, or its citizens can get around the controls easily.

Knowing what I do about the internet, I suspect that right now young well educated Chinese can easily get around the restrictions, and this can't be fixed short of unplugging the internet. The rest, which are currently the vast bulk of the population, get to see and here only what the government wants. Right now I don't think it would matter if they didn't, the Chinese government paranoia notwithstanding. While the government is delivering economically, their hold on power is safe.

But the things the government is doing now to maintain control sow the seeds of destruction of those very same conditions. Educating the young population ensures the propaganda control the Government has now will disappear, and the rising wages in China will eventually mean the West can't afford their products. Hitting that point makes for a painful transition. Just ask Japan.

When that happens they will find themselves in the same position as Russia was. Unhappy citizens looking out at envy at a more prosperous West, who apparently live in some Avatar like society. (US propaganda has just a potent as the PRC's, in its own way.) What happens next? Buggered if I know, but if I was China's ruling elite, I'd be taking careful note of the fact that unlike the mob Mao took over from, Gorbachev and all his mates are still in one piece, enjoying their dotage.

China as an equal,eh? Or as a friend? With friends like that who needs enemies?

I long as they stay in the overpopulated,digusting hellhole which they have made for themselves I am prepared to tolerate them and no more.

Thanks for your comments fellers. I enjoy reading them. None of us has a mortgage on the truth...least of all me. This land of contradictions is such a difficult place to get a handle on. However, that shouldn't stop any of us from adding our personal perspectives to the sum total of opinion on China.

I remain a proud Australian and democrat. But I am a contradiction also. China does that to you. E.g., although I have a visceral dislike of the system itself, I appreciate the government's problems. Although I abhor a system that allows such a wide disparity of wealth, I appreciate the fact that so many people are being lifted out of poverty via the trickle-down effect. And on and on it goes...nothing is cut and dried. The best thing to do is take this place as you find it.

Once again, fellers, thanks. I appreciate your comments.

Brian,

I also would like to see China improve the plight of its people.

However, my own perspective (or bias) is with Western interests.

The more I think about the environment, human rights, political freedom, and most other issues, the more I am worried about the rise of China and the example it sets for another authoritarian nations. Oh, I forgot, it makes a lot of cheap products while taking lots of Western jobs offshored

As far as accepting high moral ground or just accepting the inevitable, as suggested by others, I make no apologies. Western hegemony, for all of its imperfections, will do it better than any other alternative. It is okay and desirable to be objective, but some trends are straightforward. An authoritarian China offers the world little besides bringing important attention to the West to do more at the international level to prevent its growing influence.

Sure the US has faults, but it is the leader of Western countries in terms of power and influence. I, for one, hope it does take China on and tempers its mercantile ways.

Who has more chance of succeeding. The Chinese people to temper its authoritarian communist party, or the US democratic system to address the power of corporations? I will put my money on the latter. The latter wil certainly occur much more quickly.

Chris,
I would like to agree with you, however the system we have now is quite different from the one that brought countries such as the US and Australia into wealth and provided our relative freedoms.
In the last 20 years or so we have had major changes to the financial system, corporations law, and media. This has allowed an unprecedented channelling of wealth out of the economy and into very few hands. the lead-up to the Iraq war showed just how "free" our media is: *All* news outlets pushed the same lies (WMDs, 911, etc) and ignored the recent historical context (US shenanigans in Iran, Iran/Iraq war, Saddam's CIA links, etc).
Similarly, the media had only one line to give on the GFC...that which the bankers would like you to hear.
Similarly the nuclear non-proliferation that is being used as a stick for Nth Korea and Iran: the US and Britain happily broke all the rules they were supposed to be following while berating the smaller nations. Is it any wonder that Iran is trying to get nukes?
America's elites will ride the corpse of the USA all the way to it's destruction. Hopefully they won't rush into a war with China...but I wouldn't be surprised given the lessons from Iraq were not learned.
Frankly, china currently provides hope for the world that the US simply doesn't. At least the folks in charge are visible.

Two points Ozandy:

For all your commentary about how society has changed recently, I think you underestimate how unequal it has been in the past. There have always been oligarchs. The only differences is the numbers, and that's not necessarily representative of a massive shift in wealth, rather, inflation. Numbers are much bigger because they don't buy as much.

Frankly, I think if you went back a hundred years I think people could say more-or-less exactly the same thing you're saying now, using different words.

As for your comment: "Frankly, china currently provides hope for the world that the US simply doesn't. At least the folks in charge are visible."

Oh good heavens no. Take it from someone who has lived in China for quite some time. This is probably the dumbest comment I've heard on Chinese vs Western leadership ever.

The folks in charge are NOT visible.

Read the link I put through on the earlier page. It's an in depth article on the communist party. Once people get in the higher echelons they're insulated from society completely.

Hu Jintao is among the least-known leaders for hundreds of years. Nothing is known about him.

Businesses are shrouded in secrecy. Boards are not known. Huawei, an electronics company linked to the government is run by... who?

Look in the article. More smoke and mirrors than you can shake as stick at. For all our cynical comments about democracy, we do live in democratic countries. Different people can run for government, look at Obama as an example. Corporations can fall and people can enquire about board membership.

None of these things are true for China.

Ozandy, please, for your own edification read that article. Christ I hope there aren't many people under the same illusion as you are, thinking the Chinese are more transparent than the west. If they do, we are so many different kinds of screwed.

Mr. Hennessy's article was very enlightening. Chinese economy is in that stage of development. I think there is another reason for the Chinese mercantilism if we do not "forget about her 5,000 year history." It is the state or dynastic control of, and inherent in, Chinese society.

It is not, however, China's mercantilism that makes us suspicious and afraid. It is her political ambition hidden behind it that makes us worry. She challenges liberalist ideas and practices in international relations.

But I would like to add that we need people like Mr. Hennessy who try to enhance mutual understanding and mitigate rivalry in international affarirs. Unnan City, Japan

Michi, you said "But I would like to add that we need people like Mr. Hennessy who try to enhance mutual understanding and mitigate rivalry in international affairs".

I can't disagree with that.