Blame and criticism, learning and endorsing - attitudes of nations

Many people say today that the West is in decline. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US and the EU are developing steadily, GDPs are at all time highs, military are massive and strong, and budgets have been cut back and loan exposure pushed down. At the same time, somehow, most people still want to live in these places.
Saudis go to the UK, Syrians to Germany, Chinese to the US, Koreans to Japan, Philippinos to Australia, Brazilians to Japan, and so on, and so on. Tell me when people start to try immigrating into China en masse, except from even more dictatorial states like North-Korea or Bangladesh (work related travel, like that of Vietnam doesn't count).

A lot of politicians and nationalist citizens are butthurt when their country is criticised. That rests on an enormous misunderstanding. Namely mixing up blame and criticism. Or thinking they are the same. Usually its the butthurt people, who are not running their countries well, who bash the West.

Criticism is just pointing out that something is wrong. But it is not saying that you are faulty for it. Your country can lack a fair justice system (like China, Pakistan, Russia and many others states do). But that is not saying that this is the individual Chinese citizen's fault. If someone tells me my country could do something better - i.e. they criticise my country - I listen to them. Why? Because they take the time and effort to give advice. If I disagree or their criticism is mistaken I can explain this to them. We both gained something and had an interesting conversation. If they are right: it's a chance for me to improve.

Blame is when something wrong is pointed out and responsibility is attributed for it. So, while it is wrong to blame the ordinary Chinese girl or guy for the bad legal system, or the average Hungarian for state corruption, and so on, it is right to blame Chinese politicians or Hungarian politicians for these things. They are the bosses, the decision makers who could change things.
Hence, people who love their country - whether they are the citizens of the US, of one of the EU countries or any other country - should learn from criticism and when justified blame their politicians.

The average person has nothing in common with his or her elected officials. No interests shared. If there is no pressure on politicians they will look to their own interests, as Bentham aptly pointed out 200 years ago.

So, don't take criticism and blame personally. Take it as a chance to gain insight on what you should pressure your overlords to change to make your country better!

A good example comes from Japan's history. Japan was forced in the 1850s to sign unfair trade-treaties with Britain, the US, Russia, France and other countries. These treaties pushed the country into a semi-colonial position. Japan also received a lot of criticism from these countries for its backwards legal institutions, poor external trading and industrial policies, etc.
Did the country deny the obvious - that the countries twisting its arm were doing better? No. It patiently put down its ass. It learned and studied how to reform its institutions, how to change its leadership, how to train its people and build up a well working industry and market. After this, between 1890 and 1911 it could revise most of the unfair treaties. In fact it grew so strong by the 1930s that the US felt threatened by it.*

Japan didn't endorse everything that Western advisors, experts, politicians, business people, philosophers and others recommended or tried to force on it. It took on those things which were useful for the country. Good management practices from the British and the Americans, yes; insane free market principles that erode society, no. Efficient army and - at the time - cutting edge uni organisation ideas from the German and the French, yes; racist colonialist ideas, no.

Being open to criticism and learning doesn't mean that you endorse everything uncritically that others tell you. It doesn't mean that others blame you and you accept responsibility. It means you are a sensible person who can choose which criticism to endorse as advice, and you can help explain to others why you think your system works better when you don't want to change.

If China would have been in a position to do the same after the 1840s or after WWI it could have become a stable power much faster. It started the same process as Japan in the 1970s however, but it only took it about forty years - thanks to its massive size, territory, military aggression and strong central government - to become the largest economy in the world.

So, when small, badly run and deeply corrupt countries like Hungary talk about the end of the West and deny that the EU is doing well...its obvious what's going on: they can't use criticism to develop. This choice is disastrous for the country: the leaders' vanity is hurt and for this reason the whole country is pushed towards Russia and China, authoritarian, and not very efficiently performing states. Time to stop such governments. Time to kick out such leaders. Time to sit down, learn, and improve.

* 34(That is why the US tried to blackmail Japan into giving up some of its conquests by stopping selling oil to it. And that's what prompted Japan to push to South-East Asia in search for oil, which triggered the US's backlash and the Pacific War. But that's another story.)

Ogura Kazuo's 'Japan's Asian Diplomacy

As part of my self-education I'm reading a good deal on Japan, China, and East-Asia in general. The last book that I got in my hand was Ogura Kazuo's Japan's Asian Diplomacy. The author served as Japan's ambassador to Vietnam, France, and Korea.

It quickly becomes obvious from the book that Ogura has plenty of insight into the main ideological and political currents shaping the broader agenda of foreign policy making in Japan, China, and Korea. He offers a historical, ideological, and political overview of Japan's relations with its neighbours going back to the early middle ages, and shows that in most cases the Japanese policies and stances were heavily influenced by internal political interests and leadership contests. In many places in the book he is openly critical about such short sighted diplomacy, and makes an effort to show that in many cases taking a too hard line in domestic politics forced the leadership into a position where to save face it was almost necessary to act aggressively on the international place - to live up to the expectations raised in the public, so to say.

The author was not afraid to point out some harmful and aggressive long standing tendencies of Japanese policies - such as treating the affairs of Korea almost as an internal issue requiring constant intervention - and the lack of long term vision in the building up of relations with China.

The book also offers a very interesting perspective on how the Tokugawa shogunate's closed-door policy served to prepare Japan to see itself ideologically and politically among the Western, colonizing, powers very soon after the Meiji period. This amounted to a significant shift from the earlier Japano- or Sino-centric world views dominating political thinking. It also explains in part why Japan acted quickly and with no sympathy towards other Asian nations.

The book discusses several other issues, and it is a very interesting and thought-provoking reading. I don't have an in depth knowledge of either Japanese history or politics yet, but I'm happy that I took down this volume from the library shelf, and at the moment it seems that it will definitely contribute to my understanding of the Japanese perspectives on diplomacy in Asia.

Praising Putin for the Syrian intervention is controversial

Even among enlightened, normal people who endorse democracy one may find advocates of Putin, or people saying things like 'Sure, he is an autocrat, but look at all that he has achieved' or 'You have to admit that he is very talented and he is doing something for stability/peace/etc.' Similar voices can be heard praising the Russian government and Putin for the role they took on in Syria recently, claiming he has been outstandingly successful, and there is a campaign that would like to make out Russia to be the country which finally does something where no one else wanted to intervene before.

That such an idea is even possible shows only two things: i) most people don't follow the news regularly, and ii) they have an awfully short memory. It is very easy to check that Russia - together with China - has vetoed four proposals at intervention and/or resolution of the conflict in Syria in the UN Security Council between 2011 and 2015. Anyone who still claims that the Russian Government or Putin is the good guy in this story or deserves the title of knight in shining armour has been seriously misled.

Russia's approach caused damage in several ways. It allowed the conflict in Syria to deepen, it hampered the effective operation of the UN Security Council, and even after their intervention it is not clear whether they really aim at resolving conflicts and fostering peace, or simply at supporting Assad, their last remaining major ally in the region. Simultaneously, it seems that the intervention is a good excuse to extend their local military capabilities which could be used to establish further strongholds in West-Asia. It is too early to say this, but Russia's basis-building in Syria might be a similar move to the Chinese military's aggressive expansion in the South-China Sea. What is clear is that Putin is using the intervention to gain political weight and restore relations broken over Ukraine. My suggestion is to keep the two issues firmly separated. Whatever Putin achieves in Syria, nobody should soften up on him concerning Ukraine. We should all welcome stability in the West-Asian region, but should be careful not to mistake occupation or the lack of overt fights due to the presence of the Russian military to be peace.