-
- QUESTION
The Guardian view on May in China: the ‘golden era’ has lost its lustre
Where’s the beef? Anyone looking at Theresa May’s three-day visit to China would be wise to focus on the substance: such trips have a history of over-promising and under-delivering. Yet it’s a sign of the times that the government has interpreted the question so literally, flagging up among its headline successes the possible lifting of a BSE-era ban so that British beef imports can reach Chinese tables. Overall, the package of agreements came in far short of previous visits. Though the mantra of a “golden era” of Sino-British relations was repeated, the shine has come off for both sides. The trip, supposedly a declaration of Britain’s trade potential in the age of Brexit, was inevitably overshadowed by her own party’s wranglings over that very subject and her leadership. The relationship’s immense asymmetry has never been quite so stark. On one side, Xi Jinping, “chairman of everything”: the most powerful leader in decades of an increasingly mighty and self-confident (some say hubristic) nation. On the other, Mrs May, an enfeebled figure representing – but for how much longer? – a nation weakened and isolated by its own folly. Though we are assured she raised human rights and the parlous political situation in Hong Kong in her meetings, she did not do so publicly. A party-run tabloid even commended her for sidestepping the topic..But there is no doubt that the prime minister’s tone on business was grittier and less compliant than that of George Osborne, who led the charge for Chinese cash, and David Cameron, who now leads the joint investment fund backing Beijing’s gargantuan Belt and Road initiative. She avoided an endorsement of the BRI infrastructure project, despite China’s blandishments. She raised intellectual property theft and steel-dumping..
Some of this reflects her lack of international vision, some a sensible caution. But another factor is that the wider mood has shifted as governments realise that China’s economic development will not translate to social and political alignment, as they once complacently assumed. Foreign businesses in China are increasingly unnerved by the pressures upon them. There is a growing focus on China’s use of “sharp power” to wield influence in Australia and New Zealand, and questions about its tactics elsewhere (such as among African Union members, given this week’s report – denied by Beijing – that China has been siphoning off vast amounts of intelligence from the $200m headquarters it built for the AU). Most of all, there is anxiety about China’s sheer confidence, fuelled by Donald Trump’s election and the Brexit vote. It is no longer biding its time but making increasingly bold statements about its place: proclaiming a new era, declaring its ambitions for “a new type of international relations” and lauding “the China Solution” to global travails. Such developments not only give Britain pause for thought, but a concrete motivation to temper its enthusiasm, with an eye to its own relations with a China-hostile US administration and Europeans anxious about the BRI. Mrs May’s remarks on the BRI were similar to Emmanuel Macron’s; that they were more muted reflects her personal style, political status and most of all her lack of leverage – so powerfully demonstrated by the last few days. Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, admitted both that a free trade deal with Beijing is “some time away” and that Britain could increase bilateral trade without leaving the EU. Meanwhile, the leaked government analysis showing that the UK will be worse off under any Brexit scenario also showed how limited the scope is for losses to be offset by new trade deals, including one with China. Now think on what terms such a deal might be reached. EU member states have failed to work together as effectively as they could in dealing with China, too often tempted to sell out their neighbour for short-term advantage. But Britain is self-evidently weaker as a solitary power, and less useful when no longer a gateway to the EU or a player in its decisions. It was wise of Mrs May not to approach Beijing as a supplicant. But in the age of Brexit, we look less like a fellow diner at the table and more like the contents of the plate.
The Guardian, (published 2 February 2018)
Sino-UK partnership transcends media mudslinging over human rights
British Prime Minister Theresa May is visiting China, seeking to expand pragmatic collaboration with the country so as to pave the way for future trade and investment deals. However, some Western media outlets keep pestering May to criticize Beijing in an attempt to showcase that the UK has withstood pressure from China and the West has consolidated its commanding position over the country in politics. Certain democracy activists in Hong Kong also intervened. In an open letter published Wednesday, Joshua Wong urged May to "stand up for Hong Kong's rights," claiming that London vowed "Hong Kong will never have to walk alone" in 1996. Taking advantage of Western forces to confront the central government is a long-term illusion of the radical Hong Kong opposition. Some Western media outlets eagerly hoped that French President Emmanuel Macron would denounce China during his Beijing trip last month, but Macron disappointed them.
May will definitely not make any comment contrary to the goals of her China trip either. For the prime minister, the losses outweigh the gains if she appeases the British media at the cost of the visit's friendly atmosphere. Europe's rational upgrade of comprehensive cooperation with China is an irreversible trend. Europeans must overcome prejudices and negative sentiments toward China. Radical voices are often heard in European public opinion on China-related issues, but they do not represent Sino-European relations and will gradually die down in the face of realistic needs. European governments have become increasingly clear-minded, and should guide public opinion in this regard. Developing friendly cooperation with China has become the mainstream in Europe, and major European countries are actually competing to collaborate with Beijing. A large trade volume with China is widely regarded as a political achievement, and meanwhile tensions with China have increasingly become a political burden. Some media's radical advocacy has already lost its appeal. The UK government has done work to shape public opinion for May's China trip. British Ambassador to China Barbara Woodward said ahead of May's visit that Britain has kept a steadfast and steady commitment to the "Golden Era" partnership with China, stressing that the country is a "natural partner" for China's Belt and Road initiative. May's enthusiastic and positive remarks about China have led European media's coverage of the trip in a positive direction. Like its participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Britain's joining the Belt and Road initiative conforms to its national interests. While the government is responsible for public well-being, the media tends to whip up sensations while disregarding sound international relations. some European media pressed May and Macron on human rights, but the two leaders sidestepped the topic on their China trip. This shows that the Sino-European relationship has, to a large degree, extricated itself from the impact of radical public opinion. China's robust development has instilled impetus for Europe to overcome its prejudices against Beijing. David Cameron's government gained Britain strategic initiative by joining the AIIB. In May's era, Sino-British relations have the conditions for strategic breakthroughs. We hope May's visit this time can function as a key to future Beijing-London cooperation.
Global Times, (published 1 February 2018)
http://www.globaltimes.cn/ content/ 1087856.shtml
Question 1
Using a minimum of two concepts or theories you have learned about in Block 2, compare and contrast the two positions outlined in the editorials. Your answer should be in the form of prose. (750 words).
Student notes
Question 1
In this question you are asked to apply minimum of two concepts or theories that you have learned from Block 2 and compare/contrast the two positions outlined in the editorials.
There are different concepts that you might choose to use in answering this question. Rising power, hegemony, zero/positive sum effects, anarchy, balance of power, interdependence, foreign direct investment and mobilities are among some of the concepts Block 2 considered, while realism and liberalism are two key theories of international relations that could be chosen.
Once you decide which concepts you would like to apply, or whether you’d like to use the theories, you should define them in your own words. For example, a country’s rising power can be seen from how it establishes hegemony over a period of time and how its rise is perceived to affect the power of the USA. The editorials provide different accounts for how China aims to expand and consolidate the sources of power. Bear in mind that, as in any TMA, there is a range of ways in which you could legitimately tackle the TMA. You may find that one concept or theory doesn’t necessarily explain everything about the articles you are discussing – try not to worry too much about that, but use the opportunity to show your comparative skills, while also engaging with conceptual or other learning from Block 2 as well as you can. As in any TMA, it is your learning from the module that is the main thing being assessed: in Question 2, then, good use of Block 2 materials for your comparative discussions will be rewarded. However, there are many ways to apply your chosen concepts when comparing the two editorials. For example, you can examine how your chosen concepts/theories are related to in the editorials and the implications that can be deduced from these. Or you can examine what the positions put forward by the editorials suggest in terms of your chosen concepts. Alternatively, if comparing theoretical perspectives, you could briefly compare and contrast the two theories, then discuss which theoretical approach each article seems to most fit with. Don’t forget to include references for your use of these or any other elements from the module materials.
Since this is a comparative exercise, why not start by listing the similarities and differences between the two articles first to help you organise how you will structure your answer and link the similarities and differences to your chosen concepts and/or theories.
Be sure to write your answers in full paragraphs, with each paragraph signposting the new point of discussion, developing and explaining your discussion point within the paragraph. A good length paragraph will normally need to be around four or five sentences in length. You also will need to reference your sources.
Please note you don’t need to provide an introduction and a conclusion for this part .
Question 2
Explain which editorial’s argument is more convincing and why. Your answer should be in the form of prose. (250 words).
Student notes
Question 2
This question asks you to explain which editorial’s argument is more convincing and why. In short, you are asked to evaluate the two arguments. Again, you do not need to provide an introduction and a conclusion for this part because it follows on from your previous answer.
To evaluate means to make an appraisal of the worth/validity/effectiveness of something. When evaluating an argument, you should weigh up the evidence and examples given in the argument and assess their appropriateness and effectiveness.
If you need to reiterate any aspect of the arguments presented in each editorial, be sure to keep this aspect brief because you don’t have a lot of space and it is your evaluations that will attract the main marks. To help your evaluation, ask yourself the following questions: how does the editorial argue their case; whether they used any evidence and if so how they presented the evidence and what kind of evidence they used.
It is also important to think through the strengths/weaknesses of the case and why. Different people will judge strengths and weaknesses of the position differently and there are no right/wrong answers here. It is recommended that you explain your reasoning as explicitly as you can.
Please ensure that you present your answer in continuous sentences, i.e. as full-length paragraphs. Since your answer is expected to be only 250 words, one or two paragraphs at most should be expected for your answer to Question 2. Finally, your answer should be explaining which is the most convincing piece in a way which does so from an academically argued position; you should avoid expressing it in terms of a personal opinion in your answers.
| Subject | Essay Writing | Pages | 7 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
Essay 1: Comparison of the Two Positions Outlined in the Editorials
The two editorials, published in the Guardian (2018) and the Global Times (2018) provide interesting viewpoints on the success of May’s visit to China. Both agree that the focus of the public and the media should be on the substance of the visit as opposed to other aspects which are not connected with the issue of trade between the United Kingdom (UK) and China. Additionally, the two editorials agree that China has become a mighty and self-confident superpower which has called for the UK and Europe in general to overcome the various prejudices they have had on Beijing. However, one of the differences is that whereas the Guardian (2018) disparages the efforts made by May to secure trade deals with China, the Global Times (2018) appraises her efforts in developing friendly cooperation with China. The differences and similarities between the two articles can be discussed within the concepts of rising power and hegemony as well as the theories of imperialism and realism.
One of the similarities between the two editorials is that they underscore the role of China as a rising power in Asia and around the world. Notably, Mohan (2012, p.49) states that a rising power is a nation that plays an unpreceded role in the reshaping of the international world order and the generation of anxiety among the other traditional world powers. According to The Guardian (2018), China has increasingly become not only a self-confident, but also a hubristic nation. In this case, the rising power of China has been a threat to the existing dominance of the United States (US). It has negatively affected the position of the US in the modern international system. Similarly, the Global Times (2018) agree that China has become the European mainstream and most of the major European countries have been competing to collaborate with Beijing.
The concept of hegemony can be used to explain the similarities in the two articles about the complex power of China, a dominant actor. In specific, hegemony refers to the complexity to a power by a dominant actor over the other actors in the international system (Mohan 2012, p.55). The Guardian (2018) demonstrates the concept of hegemony by arguing that China has used “sharp power” which exists in both her political and economic fields to world influence over other actors such as Australia and New Zealand. Additionally, the editorial is clear that China has declared its new era of international relations which are based on the “China Solution” to global problems. A similar issue is raised in the Global Tomes (2018) which argues that China’ has become so dominant both politically and economically such that the other actors are competing to collaborate with it.
Despite these similarities being based on the concepts of rising power and hegemony, differences in the two articles can be examined from the theory of imperialism. According to Mohan, (2012, p.56), imperialism refers to the creation and the subsequent maintenance of unequal economic and territorial relationship which results in the colonization, domination, and subordination. Whereas the Global Tomes (2018) holds that China’s power has resulted in imperialism due to its deployment of sharp power to influence over other countries such as Australia and the African Union (AU) member states, the Guardian (2018) argues that the UK, though weakened by Brexit, is yet to be colonized and dominated by China. Additionally, the Guardian (2018) differs from the Global Tomes (2018) on the aspect of the imperialist tendencies of China towards the UK and other countries in Europe.
The theory of realism is a point of difference between the two editorials. Notably, realism refers to states being motivated but their national interests of self-preservation or security (Kiely 2012, p.78). As a result, in any international relations, each state will seek to advance her own interties irrespective of how much they seem otherwise. In this regard, according to the Guardian (2018), China has siphoned out massive amounts of intelligence from the AU headquarters that it has built. The aim of such actions is not to safeguard the security interests of the AU member states but her interests (Farooki and Mohan 2012, 99). The intelligence siphoned is used by China to strategize and continue to dominate other African countries. However, the Global Times (2018) shows a departure from realism through the claims that it makes in the editorial. For instance, although it would be in the interest of the UK to further its national interests, it claims that it should have focused on asking Beijing about human rights abuses in Hong Kong. As a result, the two differ on the principle of realism.
Essay 2: The Most Convincing Editorial
Based on a comparison of the two editorials, the Global Times (2018) is more convincing than the Guardian (2018) editorial. The Global Times (2018) lashes out at the media and some democracy activists from Hong Kong for demanding that May stands up for the human rights of the Hong Kong people. Additionally, it banishes those media organizations, especially from the west who hoped that the French President, Emmanuel Macron, would denounce China during his Beijing trip. It is agreeable with the editorial that China has become a rising power and trying to denounce it would be impeding the national interests of the individual states. May’s actions were based on the principle or realism which holds that that international relations are based on national interests. The editorial clearly states that whipping up sensations while disregarding sound international relations impedes a state’s ability to advance its national interests. The other justification as to why the Global Times (2018) is the most convincing is because it is pegged on sound analysis of how international systems work. The editorial is alive to the dominance of China and the reality of the needs of the UK. It is against radical advocacy of the media which puts a strain on sound international relations. The fact that it acknowledges that the UK should detach itself from the radical public opinions and focus on protecting its national interests makes it in tandem with the principle of realism. The basis of the editorial is on sound concepts and principles of international relations and hence, more convincing.
References
|
Farooki, M. and Mohan, G., 2012. The rising powers as drivers of development. In: Butcher, Melissa and Papaioannou, Theo eds. International Development in a Changing World. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 99-123. Global Times., 2018. Sino-UK partnership transcends media mudslinging over human rights - Global Times. [online] Available at: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1087856.shtml [Accessed 3 Nov. 2018]. Kiely, R., 2012. Change, politics and the international system. In: Butcher, Melissa and Papaioannou, Theo eds. International Development in a Changing World. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 77-98. Mohan, G., 2012. Rising powers. In: Butcher, Melissa and Papaioannou, Theo eds. International Development in a Changing World. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 49–75. The Guardian., 2018. The Guardian view on May in China: the ‘golden era’ has lost its lustre | Editorial. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/02/the-guardian-view-on-may-in-china-the-golden-era-has-lost-its-lustre [Accessed 3 Nov. 2018]. |