This is a post about politics and the environment. A while ago I gathered some quotes together, interspersed with my own thoughts, and stuck it in a folder for a rainy day. I just reworked it a bit. Kickin’ rad.
- “The western development trajectory indicated that environmental issues would be dealt with after one becomes rich. However the reality is that, as the consequence of unsustainable development practices and policies currently employed, environmental degradation, resource scarcity and human health are bottlenecks for China’s continued development and quality of life.”
-Lu Zhi, 北大 (http://china.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/questions-for-lu-zhi/)
-Thank you for saying that. Too many Chinese people argue not so much against environmental protection, but FOR the status quo by saying “after we’ve developed we’ll deal with it” or some variation thereof. The truth is, a lot of things we do to the world are much more expensive to fix than to prevent, and others simply cannot be undone.
- “Fundamentally, however, an authoritarian, decentralized, endemically corrupt political system has little hope of becoming a global environmental leader, much less getting its own environmental house in order. What is missing from China’s environmental protection effort to date is not access to environmental policy approaches or knowledge about environmental protection technologies but rather a system of transparency, accountability and rule of law that rewards officials and businesspeople who do the right thing and punishes those that do not.”…
- “In concrete terms, this means that China’s burgeoning environmental non-governmental (NGO) movement must be protected from corrupt officials who try to quash them. At this time, it’s not. It means that reporters need to be able to report on pollution disasters, uncover and report on environmental abuses, and publicize official malfeasance with impunity. At this point, they can’t. It also means that the party must be removed from the legal system and that trials are open and transparent to prevent the atrocious corruption that pervades the political and economic system in the country. This is not currently in the cards.”
-Elizabeth Economy (http://china.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/answers-from-elizabeth-economy/)
-Good answers across the board from her, but the scenario she spins out is rather utopian. China’s not going to eliminate media controls any time soon, much less suddenly change its political culture. For me, media is key. I think everything that can reasonably be done to help media gradually open, to help media stay on the path toward openness, should be done. This is not to say we foreigners should start interfering in every way we can. Interfering is very delicate, and even on the rare occasions it might be useful, requires serious thought.
It’s the fundamental values of democracy that matter in this, and all other cases (and it’s thinking like this that hopefully distinguishes me from more hawkish or neoconservative folk). By suggesting that change be implemented in China (or Russia, or anywhere else) I do not want to say “be like America,” “be like Europe,” or “be like the ancient Greeks.” I mean only to advocate on behalf of the values that form the substratum of successful democracies, republics, communes, households, etc: transparency, accountability, and equality. Clearly I’m biased towards what I know and what benefits me, but I also honestly think most people prefer to see values such as I’ve mentioned supported. There are a host of ways to pursue these goals, and one need not see modern America, Europe, Japan, et al. as anything other than case studies — though they ought not be forgotten.
