Firstly, it is the treatment of the Chinese government's minorities and their cultures within their own country. As per Tim Marshall's Prisoners of Geography (an excellent read), and reinforced in news stories since, distinct minorities and cultures in China, be they Tibetans or Muslims in Xinjiang, are treated in an exceptional way. Whilst negative treatment of minorities, and potentially separatist ones at that, is not particularly exceptional when it comes to national governments, and has been seen and continues to be seen around the world, what makes China is unique is not only its harsh treatment of them in the short term, but the encouragement of Han Chinese to settle in those regions in major numbers so that, in the long term, native distinct peoples are overwhelmed, to become a footnote in history books. Just as history has seen native peoples in the Americas and Australasia overwhelmed by incomers, so China seems set to do the same in her own lands. The world has great self awareness now, looking on the overwhelming of these historic cultures with regret, while China knowingly seems to pursue this goal even though we supposedly live in enlightened times.
Secondly, and linking with the above, is the approach to Hong Kong, which feels of greater significance to me as a Briton. Hong Kong appeared to be a remarkable place, of economic success and opportunities, which it was hoped would continue. However, in this relatively democratic part of China, the tide has been turned in response to protests in order to suppress critical voices- an important ingredient not only for democracy, but also progress, as faults can be pointed out and then worked out. Allowing only 'patriotic' pro-mainland voices in Hong Kong politics will sadly stifle, and likely reverse, the relative democracy and freedom enjoyed there, and also makes one wonder whether business will view Hong Kong in the same way as it has done historically. Every news story on this subject I have seen over the past year has saddened me, and I'm not optimistic about Hong Kong's future. At least the UK has offered Hong Kong's citizens a means of escape- an unfortunate outcome, but a lesser evil and an important sign of support and hope for the people there. Meanwhile, it is also my understanding that the abovementioned policy of encouraging compliant Han Chinese to settle in Hong Kong as well is taking place and is intended to overwhelm those with memories of those greater freedoms in the longer term.
With these above points, the Chinese response in the media appears to be that these are internal Chinese matters that outsiders shouldn't comment on and are none of their business. There is truth in this but, for a country that could lead the world, leaders must be mindful of the example their countries set. And deliberately overwhelming alternative voices and perspectives does not present a positive image. So the third and final point is concern over the prospect of China as the world's leading country. Say what you want about the faults of the previous dominant power, the UK, as well as the current one, the USA (and, fortunately, the freedom to say what you want about them is a freedom we enjoy!) but, in spite of their faults, they have long spread messages of good values, of democracy and freedom. Although Britain profited from what we now see as the immoral slave trade, when attitudes caught up with how wrong this was, a complete shift in treatment of slavery was adopted, not only abolishing it at home, but playing a leading role in its abolition worldwide as well. Meanwhile, the United States supported dubious governments during the Cold War for strategic reasons, but when practical and possible would support democracy and self-determination, as promoted globally after the world wars. And although many are keen to point out the negative impact of these countries on the world, their positive legacy can be seen too: former countries of the British Empire include the world's largest democracy, India, and one of the world's most stable, developed and generally successful countries, Singapore- not to mention the famously peaceful countries of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with living standards and freedoms envied across the world. And, if Britain is to be criticised for negative influences elsewhere, surely it can then claim some credit for these countries' success? Meanwhile, after the Second World War, the United States' occupation of Japan left a country that became one of the world's foremost economies, successfully upholding peace, stability and democracy. If China does indeed lead the world one day, can we anticipate similarly positive legacies around the world resulting from their power and influence? It may well be the case (and, judging so far, it seems not unforeseeable) that China maintains a non-interventionist stance to foreign policy. And, given the negative outcomes of intervention in the Middle East in recent decades, the positive arguments for this are obvious. However, if another Gulf War scenario arose, whereby a larger country used force to resolve a dispute with a smaller neighbour, like Iraq did with Kuwait, would it be right to leave Kuwait to be overwhelmed, as non-interventionism would allow, and encourage a world where it's every nation for itself?
Although China's rise seems set to continue, the controversy surrounding it should act as a restraining influence as the numerous countries wary of this, from the USA, to many European countries, Australia, India and Japan, and can hopefully create an effective counterbalance and together perhaps ensure a moral influence around the world is upheld in the decades ahead (assuming China doesn't turn over a new leaf in the meantime).
