Left Flank

South Korean hurt feelings about Chinese anti-Korean sentiments supposedly (it's a two-week cesspool of nationalism after all!) expressed at the Beijing Olympics are a bit rich.

The reversal began with Korea registering the Gangneung Danoje Festival with UNESCO. Claims spread that Dano was originally a Chinese festival, but Korea had stolen it. This continued into complaints that Korea did not respect Chinese culture and was stealing Chinese history.

Later, the Chinese launched indiscriminate attacks on Korean claims of origination. Groundless or highly doubtful claims that Chinese characters, acupuncture and even the historic Chinese beauty Xi Shi were Korean were depicted as established theory in Korea and spread through the Internet. A psychological framework similar to that shown by Koreans protesting China's Northeast Project took root on the Internet in China.

This online anti-Korean sentiment spread thanks to young Chinese Internet users born in the 1980s and 1990s. These youngsters, who grew up enjoying the sweet fruits of Chinese reform and openness, have been brought together by a bottomless pride in their homeland. For them, Korea is no longer a subject of admiration as it was in the past. Anti-Korean sentiment is the path through which their patriotism and nationalism is directed at Korea's negative side.

On the other hand, the way Korea looks at China is not keeping up with these changes in China. The refusal to recognize China's growth into a major economic power, or psychological insecurity fearing such growth, is making difficult a balanced view of China. An official from the local Koreans' association said it seems neither the view that China is still a backwards country nor the view that it's a great power can explain what is going on.

That China's need for Korea is dropping is counted as a factor in the failure to block the spread of anti-Korean sentiment. China, which developed on the Korean model of labor intensive industries, now wants higher-stage industries, but Korean know-how is not satisfying this desire. The view that Korea is a competitor, not a model, is dominating Chinese magnanimity towards Korea.

As Ampontan points out, South Koreans are only miffed at how the Chinese are stealing their trademark virtue in the region. At the risk of sounding polyannish...

It would be far wiser for the South Koreans to find ways to encourage more amicable feelings toward Japan among its people than to exacerbate the tendency to indulge in unproductive emotionalism. They are the only two countries in the region sharing a commitment to democratic governments, free markets, and the rule of law. If they dropped the game, Japan could be the best friend South Korea has in the neighborhood. The potential benefits of partnership are enormous if the country ever chooses an option besides cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Powered by ScribeFire.

It's very difficult to find opinions about the politics of the 2008 Beijing Olympics that don't hover like platitudes. But, I think I've identified three opinions that move the discussion beyond hot air.

1. «Hurt Feelings»: Daniel Drezner and Robert Kagan debate the importance Beijing places on «respect» from the international community, to prove to the average Chinese citizen of the legitimacy of the government. But, to understand this, Minxin Pei's notion of «aggrieved nationalism» is illuminating.

American nationalism is triumphant rather than aggrieved. In most societies, nationalism is fueled by past grievances caused by external powers. Countries once subjected to colonial rule, such as India and Egypt, are among the most nationalistic societies. But American nationalism is the polar opposite of such aggrieved nationalism. American nationalism derives its meaning from victories in peace and war since the country’s founding. Triumphant nationalists celebrate the positive and have little empathy for the whining of aggrieved nationalists whose formative experience consisted of a succession of national humiliations and defeats.

2. The Slippery Notion of «Modernity»: Susan Brownell has an informative essay about how the Chinese for the 2008 Beijing Olympics are fulfilling a project, «Modernity», started by the Americans in 1904 at St. Louis. China Beat's Sam Goffman highlights this insight within the context of a comparison with the 1988 Seoul Olympics.
3. Crass vs. Open: Finally, I have this insight, that the economic opening to world markets the Beijing Olympics heralds and is perceived to intensify is not necessarily a crass consumerism so evident in the US. It's debatable whether the average Chinese person will ever be able to make decisions about their future without state interference, but I don't equate this freedom with eating at McDonald's and drinking Coca-Cola.

Something Tobias Harris, quoting William Gibson, says here about the United States as a 'normal' 19th Century state jarred lose this live thought of Matt Welch's (above) on how American voters increasingly are thinking beyond 19th Century ideology—at least on political economy— in Gibson's terms. Harris takes the discussion to foreign policy.

Nationalism need not be associated with military power, although nineteenth-century nationalism is. Why can't a twenty-first century nation be proud of more pacific achievements, whether domestic (a society with a low crime rate or high literacy) or international (a commitment to creating a more peaceful, orderly world)? The revisionists do not have a monopoly on pride in their country. Defenders of Japan's postwar system have plenty of which to be proud.

Let Welch's and Harris' conclusions swirl around (and, by all means, read and listen to both posts) in your alienated, postmodern heads, and get back to me.

: