Recently China’s economic diplomacy has caused much criticism from the international community. While rich democratic countries emphasize human rights and environmental standards when they pursue their development agendas in Africa, the Middle East, etc., China is viewed to be taking a strategy that focuses primarily on trade, investment and infrastructure without any concern for human rights. Consequently, China’s bids earn favor, far exceeding those of the West. Seeing this happening, politicians from the US figure that China’s approach may be more appealing to the elite in less democratic countries, and they have launched a campaign of criticizing China’s economic diplomacy.

For readers who have some knowledge of American diplomatic policy, they should not be surprised by China’s economic diplomacy at all. It is actually very similar to the strategy that the Reagan administration took in the 1980s. Reagan, in the heyday of communism, believed that the communist countries would all be transformed to capitalism democracy if they were involved in world capitalist economic system. Reagan believed that despite the bad human right records, when the economies developed, their inclination towards democracy would grow, and ultimately lead to regime change. Reagan therefore promoted trade and developing aid in those countries–hence the famous “peaceful transformation” strategy was formed. Regan’s diplomacy succeeded. The year 1989 saw his predictions realized.

Now, if Regan had used a similar policy which seemed successful, why should China’s policy be criticized so much? Shouldn’t China be viewed as a new “peaceful transformation” agent? After all, if economic development would lead to democracy, does it matter whether the Western countries or China push for development?

Of course US politicians nowadays are not following this reasoning. They have rejected Regan’s strategy and rationale. “Peaceful transformation” seems too good to be true, particularly after seeing the non-democratic China’s rise in recent years. A typical challenge to Regan’s rationale is given by James Mann, former LA Times Beijing Bureau Chief and a distinguished China researcher.

In his recent book The China Fantasy, Mann challenges the conventional wisdom that has guided American policy toward China, which is with increasing prosperity and with the arrival of McDonald’s and Starbucks, China will move inevitably toward political liberalization and democracy. While this view is taken by many people, there is also a set of warnings flashing around, indicating that China is more fragile than it seems to the extent that it could collapse into chaos any time. The two drastically different understandings, however, only lead to the same consequence: in political speeches and in mass media, China is given less and less critical observation, and critics of China’s human rights abuses become less outspoken. The reason is simple—if it is the former, there is no point to make troubles for the US by criticizing Chinese government, given China will naturally be transformed to democracy; if it is the latter case, it will only hurt the US before the Communism actually collapse.

To Mann, this misleading strategy towards China has relieved outside pressure to China and helped it to grow without caring about human rights. The faults lie in the US and other Western courntries’ side. The American political elites—aided and abetted by big business, the media and think tanks—have misguided the public. Mann brings out an alternative understanding. What if there is a third alternative between the rise of democracy and the collapse of China’s political order? What would it mean for the United States—and, indeed, the world—if 20 or 30 years from now China becomes much richer and more powerful while still maintaining an authoritarian state and bad human right record? Mann thinks that scenario highly likely. The position of Mann’s towards China has influenced Washington DC politicians increasingly, whom now naturally care more about political reform and human rights in development–even to the extent that they set them as preconditions for any development aid. In other words, Regan’s “peaceful transformation” strategy has been abandoned.

Now that “peaceful transformation” strategy lost its market, politicians of course would not view China’s efforts as something inherently good. Their opinion is lowered when the US economic interests are in conflict with such efforts. Most obviously, when China set out to secure oil supply, the US politicians feel threatened, most of whom therefore change to an even more critical position.