Your contact for new licenses
Microsoft is shutting down the Chinese offshoot of professional network LinkedIn. A reaction to an intolerable level of censorship? No. The main reason for the closure was the network’s lack of success. Our author Frank Sieren explains why this doesn’t change much for China or Microsoft: Chinese users prefer to use domestic platforms. Expats and other foreigners, on the other hand, mostly use the LinkedIn sites of their home countries. Frank Sieren is a power user of LinkedIn himself – and he also uses the international version in China, not the Chinese one.
Kishore Mahbubani is one of Asia’s most respected diplomats. He was an ambassador for Singapore to the USA and the UN. In between, he became an academic and taught at the National University of Singapore. In all these roles, he cultivated an Asia-centric view of the world. In an interview with China.Table, he now polarizes with the thesis that China has exactly the freedoms it wants and needs. Mahbubani also compares the storming of the Hong Kong parliament by democracy supporters to the storming of the Capitol in Washington by Trump supporters – both are violations of the law, he says, and both are rightly punished. On an abstract level, that’s entirely true but is likely to raise some eyebrows.
Mahbubani’s diagnosis, on the other hand, is less controversial: The US is in a pitiful state, has actually already gambled away its claim to global leadership – and a much more rational and better organized China stands ready to step into the gap. The leadership style, however, will be different: “China does not want to change the world or even improve it in a missionary way. China will not get tangled up in unnecessary wars like Iraq or Syria.”
Wishing you a productive start to the week,
Disclaimer: This interview has been translated into English and is not considered an official translation by any party involved in the interview.
Mr. Kishore Mahbubani, your latest book, “Has China won? The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy” has just been released in German. A very exciting book in which you challenge many assumptions of the West. We want to talk with you about the global conflict between China and the US. Has China already won?
At the moment, many people will think: yes. But it’s not there yet. Not yet. But if the United States continues its course – without a comprehensive strategy towards China – it will indeed lose.
For many, this is a frightening prediction because, in the West, there is a clear picture of the confrontation: On one side, the USA, a democracy, an ally, for some even a friend. On the other side, China, evil, challenging and dangerous.
Yes, it may be. But it’s not true. China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. For most of its 4000-year history, it led the world. Now, the Chinese had a bad 200 years – and the West was very successful. But just based on this short time frame, the West now thinks in all seriousness that China must now develop like the West? To become a copy of the West – that is a false assumption. Chinese civilization is stronger and more confident than the West. The Chinese see no reason at all to become like the West. The West urgently needs to understand that.
China does not have to become a copy of the West. But shouldn’t universal rights and values apply everywhere in the world?
Oh yes, now you’re talking about democracy again. Yes, democracy has worked well in the West. But in China, we know from our own history that without a strong central government, the people suffer immensely. Besides, when China was weak, the West showed no interest in bringing democracy to the country. On the contrary, the West trampled on China and exploited China’s weakness mercilessly. And now that China is regaining its old strength, it suddenly occurs to the West: Oh, why won’t you become like us. Are they serious?
That sounds a lot like Chinese retribution.
No, not at all. The Chinese do not need retribution. But they are surprised that the West thinks it knows better what is good for the Chinese people than the Chinese themselves. That is very arrogant. The West thinks everything the West does is right, and everything China does is wrong.
Then what do the Chinese think about their situation?
The living conditions of the Chinese have improved more than in the entire 4000 years before. And at the very moment, when the Chinese become happy once again, the West comes along and says: things can’t go on like this.
You are still thinking about democracy and the western system of government. But that’s not what I mean. I’m thinking of values. What would be so wrong with providing the Chinese with universal human rights like freedom of expression?
Well, the US is supposed to be the place with the most freedom of speech. But when a politician stands up and says: We have to prepare for the fact that our country may no longer be number one in the world, then he is politically dead – in the land of free speech. What I’m saying is that every society must find a balance between freedom and constraints.
A very abstract comparison.
Of course, China does not have the same freedoms as Western societies. But you have to keep it in perspective. The Chinese have gone through hell in the past 150 years. The majority had nothing to eat. Eighty percent lived below the poverty line. They couldn’t choose where to live, where to work, what to learn, not even what to wear. Everyone wore Mao suits. Today, China is entirely different.
And everything is great: no coercion, no oppression, just joy?
I’ll give you another fact that explains my point. The Soviet Union had not allowed its citizens to travel elsewhere because they would have all run away from fear, poverty, and oppression. In 2019, 139 million Chinese traveled abroad. That’s almost twice the entire Federal Republic. And guess what? They all came back to China. If the Chinese government was oppressing people like that, I don’t think it would have happened. They come back because they enjoy their lives and freedoms in China.
The Soviet Union was also in conflict with the US – now America’s great rival is China. You say that in the current conflict, America has long since become like the Soviet Union. What do you mean by that?
The US has become ideological, inflexible, and narrow-minded – just as the Soviet Union once was. And just like Moscow, it is now the West, especially the US, that is making fundamental mistakes concerning China.
What mistakes?
China is now ahead of the US because Beijing cares about its people. America’s workers have long since become a sea of the desperate. They’ve elected Donald Trump. And even more shocking, Donald Trump could be back for the next election. What has to happen to society to seriously elect someone like Donald Trump? But America’s confidence doesn’t seem to be affected because people still think they’re the beacon of the world. The beacon of the world with a president like Donald Trump?
International politicians were all the more pleased that Joe Biden won the election against Trump. But their verdict on Biden is no better.
Joe Biden is, of course, much better than Donald Trump. But when it comes to China, he has changed absolutely nothing. During his election campaign, he branded Trump’s trade war as damaging for America’s economy and workers, but as president, Biden has changed nothing.
The People’s Republic is in a better state, in your opinion?
Yes, it is successful, rational, flexible, and reserved.
Reserved? Many people would beg to differ, for example, in Hong Kong.
This is a complicated issue. Of course, the people there have the right to express their displeasure peacefully. But last year, the protests turned violent. When the Legislative Assembly was attacked, people in the West cheered it as an expression of freedom. Just a quick comparison: When the US Congress was assaulted in January 2021, the public opinion was notably different. In America, it’s vandalism; in Hong Kong, it’s an act of freedom? Please, that’s a double standard right there. When people break the law, they should be punished for it. All over the world.
But the people of Hong Kong only became violent once they were no longer allowed to protest. They are concerned about their rights.
No, that’s your Western view. And with all due respect, it is wrong. It certainly has several causes, but the main reason is the poor state of the economy and the critical housing situation. Here, Beijing actually made a big mistake by initially relying on Hong Kong’s real estate tycoons. But as soon as the social situation in Hong Kong improves again, protests will also end.
Another example of China’s reserve was Beijing’s reaction to the Nobel Peace Prize for Liu Xiaobo. At the time, sanctions were imposed on Norway – because the award ceremony was held there.
China only reacted so harshly at the time because it saw its national interests under attack.
Just like the US does in international politics. So there is no difference after all?
There is no such thing as a benign superpower. That is a contradiction in itself. Superpowers will always defend their own interests. The idea that a superpower would sacrifice its own interests to help other countries is nonsense. So if China sees its interests at risk, it will react very, very strongly. But one more thought on the Nobel Prize: Deng Xiaoping lifted 500 million people out of poverty, arguably one of the greatest contributions to the peace and well-being of people in the entire world. A true example for the Nobel Peace Prize. But that one time an Asian receives it, it’s a dissident. We Asians don’t understand that. From my point of view, it’s another instance of double standards.
Trump and Biden make many mistakes, in your opinion. What do you think of Xi Jinping? Some people are already reminded of Mao Zedong regarding the extent of his power. Deng Xiaoping wanted to prevent such a thing. But Xi has long since lifted term limits for the presidency, an idea of Deng’s, by the way.
Deng retired in the 1990s, and the nation was on a good path. Had that not been the case, he surely would have stepped in again. When Xi Jinping came to power, the country and the Communist Party were on the brink of their demise due to corruption and internal strife. In addition, there is now also the conflict with the US. No nation in the world would change its leader in such a situation. And why would they? The Chinese are happy with Xi. They want a strong leader like him.
Even under Joe Biden, tensions won’t seem to ease between the US and China for the foreseeable future. Are we facing a new Cold War?
I think that would be the wrong term. Back then, two isolated blocs faced each other; Today, both nations are closely intertwined economically. But again, the change in America is interesting: Back then, Washington advocated free trade; today, it shuns free trade agreements, imposes punitive tariffs, and withdraws from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All mistakes.
So no new Cold War. What do we experience then?
It’s a massive geopolitical contest, but in a small, interdependent world that also, more and more, needs to face mutual, global challenges like the Corona pandemic or climate change. If China and the US don’t get this, they’ll become like two monkey tribes, fighting each other, oblivious to the forest burning down around them. That would be disastrous – for America, for China, and the entire world.
A world under US leadership is familiar to us. If China would now actually win this contest, what would the world of tomorrow look like?
China will not follow in America’s footsteps; it does not want to change the world or even improve it in a missionary way. China won’t allow itself to be tangled up in needless wars like Iraq or Syria. That’s because China is busy enough with its 1.4 billion people. Its focus is on improving the lives of its people.
What does this mean for the West?
America and Europe should strengthen their current system, a system of rules. And let’s face it, they are Western rules. But it doesn’t matter. China will abide by that system because it benefits from it. China is not going to tear down the international system and rebuild it with Chinese rules. So again, my clear advice: Europe and the US should not axe the international system themselves; they should not withdraw. Instead, they should reinforce the system with their rules. Then China, as number one, will also accept this system.
A final word on Germany. Almost all parties have criticized Angela Merkel’s policy as overly China-friendly and declared a tougher line towards Beijing. A good decision?
The biggest mistake in geopolitical matters is to get emotional. The West, like Germany, seems driven by a fear of the Yellow Threat. This is tantamount to a Western psychosis. Germany should not make this mistake. Its heart leans toward America, but the facts say otherwise, which is good and important for Germany. China’s market has grown threefold in the last ten years. You should not forget where you sell your cars.
Kishore Mahbubani (73) hails from Singapore. From 1971 to 2004, he served in the diplomatic service of the city-state and was, among other things, president of the UN Security Council and ambassador to the US and Malaysia. Since leaving active employment, he has caught attention with books addressing the end of the rule of the West. He was a professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.
In a way, it was the Dalai Lama and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy who got Professor Andreas Fuchs involved with China. The 2008 meeting between the Tibetan leader and the then EU Council president caused dissonance between the EU and China. “The political tensions were so present that Chinese people in my circle of acquaintances in Paris turned down job offers in France and returned home,” Andreas Fuchs says, looking back. “That was one of the moments when I realized that with China, we not only have an emerging world power but that political relations and business are particularly closely intertwined here.” Interest was piqued.
Fascinated by the interplay of political tensions and economic effects, Andreas Fuchs turned his attention to China’s growing development cooperation in his dissertation a few years later – today, the 39-year-old is a popular researcher in this field.
This is also reflected in his professorship in development economics at the University of Göttingen, which he has held since 2019. In Göttingen, he also heads the Centre for Modern East Asian Studies. This is because, in addition to his personal motivation, what drives him above all is the lack of knowledge about China in Germany and Europe: “Research with and about China absolutely has to grow,” he says. “We have a knowledge gap, even though China is becoming increasingly important worldwide and thus also for Germany – both politically and economically.”
Fuchs is now helping to close this gap. To this end, he and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy are setting up the Kiel Institute China Initiative, a network of experts working on China’s economy in academia and policy consulting.
Fuchs also fills the gap in understanding China’s development cooperation. Since 2010, the economist has been researching the fundamental differences between Western and Chinese development cooperation and trying to understand the motives of the leadership in Beijing to establish development projects – because China’s influence is growing. But the Chinese approach is less humanitarian and democratic than Western development cooperation.
Research shows quite clearly that economic and power-political interests are decisive for China. In Western circles, the finger is quickly raised with the motto: “We knew it would happen,” says Fuchs. “However, one should not ignore the fact that self-interests also have a major influence on Western development projects.”
A significant difference from Western aid? “China follows the principle of non-interference in most projects, i.e. it does not dictate how the states use the money,” says Fuchs. This, he says, leads to more development projects in Africa, for example, in areas that are already comparatively prosperous because many heads of state, for example, direct the money to their regions of birth rather than taking a needs-based approach. “From a Western perspective on development cooperation, this is problematic.” This is not the way to close the gap between rich and poor.
Nevertheless, economic growth in the regions supported by China is increasing. “In the coming years, it will therefore be important for Germany and Europe to understand whether and how the attitudes of people in the supported countries towards China and values such as democracy and a market economy are changing,” says Fuchs. “Our initial research in Latin America shows: China is polarizing.” Some people are developing a very positive attitude, others a very negative one towards China.
Incidentally, the Dalai Lama didn’t just motivate Fuchs to take an interest in China. It even made it into his research: In 2013, Fuchs and his team showed that countries that officially receive the Dalai Lama actually have worse economic relations with China – the “Dalai Lama Effect” was born. Leon Kirschgens
Microsoft is shutting down the Chinese offshoot of professional network LinkedIn. A reaction to an intolerable level of censorship? No. The main reason for the closure was the network’s lack of success. Our author Frank Sieren explains why this doesn’t change much for China or Microsoft: Chinese users prefer to use domestic platforms. Expats and other foreigners, on the other hand, mostly use the LinkedIn sites of their home countries. Frank Sieren is a power user of LinkedIn himself – and he also uses the international version in China, not the Chinese one.
Kishore Mahbubani is one of Asia’s most respected diplomats. He was an ambassador for Singapore to the USA and the UN. In between, he became an academic and taught at the National University of Singapore. In all these roles, he cultivated an Asia-centric view of the world. In an interview with China.Table, he now polarizes with the thesis that China has exactly the freedoms it wants and needs. Mahbubani also compares the storming of the Hong Kong parliament by democracy supporters to the storming of the Capitol in Washington by Trump supporters – both are violations of the law, he says, and both are rightly punished. On an abstract level, that’s entirely true but is likely to raise some eyebrows.
Mahbubani’s diagnosis, on the other hand, is less controversial: The US is in a pitiful state, has actually already gambled away its claim to global leadership – and a much more rational and better organized China stands ready to step into the gap. The leadership style, however, will be different: “China does not want to change the world or even improve it in a missionary way. China will not get tangled up in unnecessary wars like Iraq or Syria.”
Wishing you a productive start to the week,
Disclaimer: This interview has been translated into English and is not considered an official translation by any party involved in the interview.
Mr. Kishore Mahbubani, your latest book, “Has China won? The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy” has just been released in German. A very exciting book in which you challenge many assumptions of the West. We want to talk with you about the global conflict between China and the US. Has China already won?
At the moment, many people will think: yes. But it’s not there yet. Not yet. But if the United States continues its course – without a comprehensive strategy towards China – it will indeed lose.
For many, this is a frightening prediction because, in the West, there is a clear picture of the confrontation: On one side, the USA, a democracy, an ally, for some even a friend. On the other side, China, evil, challenging and dangerous.
Yes, it may be. But it’s not true. China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. For most of its 4000-year history, it led the world. Now, the Chinese had a bad 200 years – and the West was very successful. But just based on this short time frame, the West now thinks in all seriousness that China must now develop like the West? To become a copy of the West – that is a false assumption. Chinese civilization is stronger and more confident than the West. The Chinese see no reason at all to become like the West. The West urgently needs to understand that.
China does not have to become a copy of the West. But shouldn’t universal rights and values apply everywhere in the world?
Oh yes, now you’re talking about democracy again. Yes, democracy has worked well in the West. But in China, we know from our own history that without a strong central government, the people suffer immensely. Besides, when China was weak, the West showed no interest in bringing democracy to the country. On the contrary, the West trampled on China and exploited China’s weakness mercilessly. And now that China is regaining its old strength, it suddenly occurs to the West: Oh, why won’t you become like us. Are they serious?
That sounds a lot like Chinese retribution.
No, not at all. The Chinese do not need retribution. But they are surprised that the West thinks it knows better what is good for the Chinese people than the Chinese themselves. That is very arrogant. The West thinks everything the West does is right, and everything China does is wrong.
Then what do the Chinese think about their situation?
The living conditions of the Chinese have improved more than in the entire 4000 years before. And at the very moment, when the Chinese become happy once again, the West comes along and says: things can’t go on like this.
You are still thinking about democracy and the western system of government. But that’s not what I mean. I’m thinking of values. What would be so wrong with providing the Chinese with universal human rights like freedom of expression?
Well, the US is supposed to be the place with the most freedom of speech. But when a politician stands up and says: We have to prepare for the fact that our country may no longer be number one in the world, then he is politically dead – in the land of free speech. What I’m saying is that every society must find a balance between freedom and constraints.
A very abstract comparison.
Of course, China does not have the same freedoms as Western societies. But you have to keep it in perspective. The Chinese have gone through hell in the past 150 years. The majority had nothing to eat. Eighty percent lived below the poverty line. They couldn’t choose where to live, where to work, what to learn, not even what to wear. Everyone wore Mao suits. Today, China is entirely different.
And everything is great: no coercion, no oppression, just joy?
I’ll give you another fact that explains my point. The Soviet Union had not allowed its citizens to travel elsewhere because they would have all run away from fear, poverty, and oppression. In 2019, 139 million Chinese traveled abroad. That’s almost twice the entire Federal Republic. And guess what? They all came back to China. If the Chinese government was oppressing people like that, I don’t think it would have happened. They come back because they enjoy their lives and freedoms in China.
The Soviet Union was also in conflict with the US – now America’s great rival is China. You say that in the current conflict, America has long since become like the Soviet Union. What do you mean by that?
The US has become ideological, inflexible, and narrow-minded – just as the Soviet Union once was. And just like Moscow, it is now the West, especially the US, that is making fundamental mistakes concerning China.
What mistakes?
China is now ahead of the US because Beijing cares about its people. America’s workers have long since become a sea of the desperate. They’ve elected Donald Trump. And even more shocking, Donald Trump could be back for the next election. What has to happen to society to seriously elect someone like Donald Trump? But America’s confidence doesn’t seem to be affected because people still think they’re the beacon of the world. The beacon of the world with a president like Donald Trump?
International politicians were all the more pleased that Joe Biden won the election against Trump. But their verdict on Biden is no better.
Joe Biden is, of course, much better than Donald Trump. But when it comes to China, he has changed absolutely nothing. During his election campaign, he branded Trump’s trade war as damaging for America’s economy and workers, but as president, Biden has changed nothing.
The People’s Republic is in a better state, in your opinion?
Yes, it is successful, rational, flexible, and reserved.
Reserved? Many people would beg to differ, for example, in Hong Kong.
This is a complicated issue. Of course, the people there have the right to express their displeasure peacefully. But last year, the protests turned violent. When the Legislative Assembly was attacked, people in the West cheered it as an expression of freedom. Just a quick comparison: When the US Congress was assaulted in January 2021, the public opinion was notably different. In America, it’s vandalism; in Hong Kong, it’s an act of freedom? Please, that’s a double standard right there. When people break the law, they should be punished for it. All over the world.
But the people of Hong Kong only became violent once they were no longer allowed to protest. They are concerned about their rights.
No, that’s your Western view. And with all due respect, it is wrong. It certainly has several causes, but the main reason is the poor state of the economy and the critical housing situation. Here, Beijing actually made a big mistake by initially relying on Hong Kong’s real estate tycoons. But as soon as the social situation in Hong Kong improves again, protests will also end.
Another example of China’s reserve was Beijing’s reaction to the Nobel Peace Prize for Liu Xiaobo. At the time, sanctions were imposed on Norway – because the award ceremony was held there.
China only reacted so harshly at the time because it saw its national interests under attack.
Just like the US does in international politics. So there is no difference after all?
There is no such thing as a benign superpower. That is a contradiction in itself. Superpowers will always defend their own interests. The idea that a superpower would sacrifice its own interests to help other countries is nonsense. So if China sees its interests at risk, it will react very, very strongly. But one more thought on the Nobel Prize: Deng Xiaoping lifted 500 million people out of poverty, arguably one of the greatest contributions to the peace and well-being of people in the entire world. A true example for the Nobel Peace Prize. But that one time an Asian receives it, it’s a dissident. We Asians don’t understand that. From my point of view, it’s another instance of double standards.
Trump and Biden make many mistakes, in your opinion. What do you think of Xi Jinping? Some people are already reminded of Mao Zedong regarding the extent of his power. Deng Xiaoping wanted to prevent such a thing. But Xi has long since lifted term limits for the presidency, an idea of Deng’s, by the way.
Deng retired in the 1990s, and the nation was on a good path. Had that not been the case, he surely would have stepped in again. When Xi Jinping came to power, the country and the Communist Party were on the brink of their demise due to corruption and internal strife. In addition, there is now also the conflict with the US. No nation in the world would change its leader in such a situation. And why would they? The Chinese are happy with Xi. They want a strong leader like him.
Even under Joe Biden, tensions won’t seem to ease between the US and China for the foreseeable future. Are we facing a new Cold War?
I think that would be the wrong term. Back then, two isolated blocs faced each other; Today, both nations are closely intertwined economically. But again, the change in America is interesting: Back then, Washington advocated free trade; today, it shuns free trade agreements, imposes punitive tariffs, and withdraws from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All mistakes.
So no new Cold War. What do we experience then?
It’s a massive geopolitical contest, but in a small, interdependent world that also, more and more, needs to face mutual, global challenges like the Corona pandemic or climate change. If China and the US don’t get this, they’ll become like two monkey tribes, fighting each other, oblivious to the forest burning down around them. That would be disastrous – for America, for China, and the entire world.
A world under US leadership is familiar to us. If China would now actually win this contest, what would the world of tomorrow look like?
China will not follow in America’s footsteps; it does not want to change the world or even improve it in a missionary way. China won’t allow itself to be tangled up in needless wars like Iraq or Syria. That’s because China is busy enough with its 1.4 billion people. Its focus is on improving the lives of its people.
What does this mean for the West?
America and Europe should strengthen their current system, a system of rules. And let’s face it, they are Western rules. But it doesn’t matter. China will abide by that system because it benefits from it. China is not going to tear down the international system and rebuild it with Chinese rules. So again, my clear advice: Europe and the US should not axe the international system themselves; they should not withdraw. Instead, they should reinforce the system with their rules. Then China, as number one, will also accept this system.
A final word on Germany. Almost all parties have criticized Angela Merkel’s policy as overly China-friendly and declared a tougher line towards Beijing. A good decision?
The biggest mistake in geopolitical matters is to get emotional. The West, like Germany, seems driven by a fear of the Yellow Threat. This is tantamount to a Western psychosis. Germany should not make this mistake. Its heart leans toward America, but the facts say otherwise, which is good and important for Germany. China’s market has grown threefold in the last ten years. You should not forget where you sell your cars.
Kishore Mahbubani (73) hails from Singapore. From 1971 to 2004, he served in the diplomatic service of the city-state and was, among other things, president of the UN Security Council and ambassador to the US and Malaysia. Since leaving active employment, he has caught attention with books addressing the end of the rule of the West. He was a professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.
In a way, it was the Dalai Lama and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy who got Professor Andreas Fuchs involved with China. The 2008 meeting between the Tibetan leader and the then EU Council president caused dissonance between the EU and China. “The political tensions were so present that Chinese people in my circle of acquaintances in Paris turned down job offers in France and returned home,” Andreas Fuchs says, looking back. “That was one of the moments when I realized that with China, we not only have an emerging world power but that political relations and business are particularly closely intertwined here.” Interest was piqued.
Fascinated by the interplay of political tensions and economic effects, Andreas Fuchs turned his attention to China’s growing development cooperation in his dissertation a few years later – today, the 39-year-old is a popular researcher in this field.
This is also reflected in his professorship in development economics at the University of Göttingen, which he has held since 2019. In Göttingen, he also heads the Centre for Modern East Asian Studies. This is because, in addition to his personal motivation, what drives him above all is the lack of knowledge about China in Germany and Europe: “Research with and about China absolutely has to grow,” he says. “We have a knowledge gap, even though China is becoming increasingly important worldwide and thus also for Germany – both politically and economically.”
Fuchs is now helping to close this gap. To this end, he and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy are setting up the Kiel Institute China Initiative, a network of experts working on China’s economy in academia and policy consulting.
Fuchs also fills the gap in understanding China’s development cooperation. Since 2010, the economist has been researching the fundamental differences between Western and Chinese development cooperation and trying to understand the motives of the leadership in Beijing to establish development projects – because China’s influence is growing. But the Chinese approach is less humanitarian and democratic than Western development cooperation.
Research shows quite clearly that economic and power-political interests are decisive for China. In Western circles, the finger is quickly raised with the motto: “We knew it would happen,” says Fuchs. “However, one should not ignore the fact that self-interests also have a major influence on Western development projects.”
A significant difference from Western aid? “China follows the principle of non-interference in most projects, i.e. it does not dictate how the states use the money,” says Fuchs. This, he says, leads to more development projects in Africa, for example, in areas that are already comparatively prosperous because many heads of state, for example, direct the money to their regions of birth rather than taking a needs-based approach. “From a Western perspective on development cooperation, this is problematic.” This is not the way to close the gap between rich and poor.
Nevertheless, economic growth in the regions supported by China is increasing. “In the coming years, it will therefore be important for Germany and Europe to understand whether and how the attitudes of people in the supported countries towards China and values such as democracy and a market economy are changing,” says Fuchs. “Our initial research in Latin America shows: China is polarizing.” Some people are developing a very positive attitude, others a very negative one towards China.
Incidentally, the Dalai Lama didn’t just motivate Fuchs to take an interest in China. It even made it into his research: In 2013, Fuchs and his team showed that countries that officially receive the Dalai Lama actually have worse economic relations with China – the “Dalai Lama Effect” was born. Leon Kirschgens