China's Trapped Transition_ The Limits of Developmental Autocracy - Minxin Pei [128]
In all likelihood, a China trapped in partial reforms would resemble, in several crucial respects, an incapacitated state. Unlike a completely failed state, an incapacitated state retains nominal national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and central government authority. Its ruling elites, through the monopoly of political power, remain unchallenged. However, in an incapacitated state, the government’s comprehensive capability of governing is feeble, even though it may retain a limited ability to enforce its will and rule selectively, mostly under circumstances where such demonstration of state power affirms, at the symbolic level, the existence of a centralized political authority. Thus, over a wide range of issues deemed of critical interest to the international community—such as environmental protection, nonproliferation, antinarcotics, migration, control of the spread of HIV/AIDS, and poverty alleviation—an incapacitated state would be unable to honor its commitments or perform its governing functions effectively. The international community would likely find threats and problems posed by incapacitated states ultimately more frustrating and difficult to address because traditional approaches to foreign policy contain few effective prescriptions to treat state incapacitation. Given China’s huge size and its role in global security and the international economy, the challenge posed by an incapacitated state in China would simply overwhelm the international community’s ability (even if we assume willingness) to provide meaningful assistance. The spillover effects from China’s internal woes and weaknesses would not only affect the interests of many nations, but also would make China’s problems those of the entire international community.
Few may have viewed China’s prospects through such dark lenses. But one ignores the self-destructive logic of predatory authoritarianism at his own peril.
Appendix
Notes
Acknowledgments
Index
Appendix:
Reported Cases of Local Mafia States
Hunan Province (seven cases reported)—The chief of the party’s politics and law committee in Zixin city and two other officials were prosecuted in 2002 for protecting a local criminal gang. In Lianyuan city, thirty-nine officials—including the police chief, the president of the local court, the chief prosecutor, and the chief of the party’s politics and law committee—were prosecuted in 2002 for protecting an organized criminal group. In Hengdong county, twenty-five officials, including the mayor and deputy chairman of the county People’s Congress, were prosecuted in 2002 for protecting an organized criminal group. In Dong’an county, sixteen officials, including the chief of the party’s politics and law committee and deputy police chief, were prosecuted in 2002 for protecting an organized criminal group. In Changde city, an unspecified number of local officials were prosecuted for colluding in smuggling automobiles. In Shuining county, seven officials—including the police chief, the head of the People’s Congress, and chief prosecutor—were arrested in 2001 for protecting organized crime. In Chaoyang city, forty-three officials, including the deputy police chief and other law enforcement officials, were prosecuted in 2002 for protecting organized crime.
Guangdong Province (seven cases reported)—Seventeen officials in Puning city, including the party secretary, were prosecuted for selling government posts in 2002. In Zhanjiang city, a large number of local officials, including the city’s party chief, were convicted of smuggling in 1998. In Yunfu city, twenty-three officials, including a deputy police chief, were prosecuted for smuggling automobiles in 2002. In Lufeng, four officials, including a prosecutor, were prosecuted in 2001 for producing counterfeit currency. In Shenzhen, five senior officials—including the