EDITORIAL : THE GLOBAL TIMES, CHINA

Friedman's misinterpretation of China

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman published a weirdly amusing article in his latest column.

It was an imaginative letter from China's Ministry of State Security to President Hu Jintao on the assessment of the recent unrest in the Arabic world.

The content offers nothing new. Friedman repeats the main tenet of his book The World is Flat, namely that the world is hyperconnected. New technology facilitates revolution, and the revolutions emerge from a public desire for dignity.

Frankly, it was a mediocre article for a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner although Friedman does not shun from his inclination to be a teacher of Chinese leaders. In the column, he twice asked the question, "Do you see what I mean, sir?"

In fact, the US as a whole has the tendency to teach other countries what is best for them. Many Americans think they are qualified to do so.

However, globetrotting, best-selling authors cannot see the world from an ordinary person, say a farmer in a developing world country and cannot claim to think from their perspective.

In Friedman's eyes, China is just another country like Egypt. What happened in Egypt is bound to happen in China, and it should embrace that change. He quoted the so-called Carlson's Law that "bottom-up innovation tends to be chaotic but smart. Top-down innovation tends to be orderly but dumb." Friedman simply suggests that China should try the same thing. It sounds very easy, hardly like a process that would affect the lives of 1.3 billion people.

Perhaps we should not idealize Friedman. The fate of China is actually irrelevant to him. After all journalists always yearn for the dramatic, or better, the thrilling tale. If China took the wrong route and suffered unpredictable consequences, this would mean nothing and is not something they really care about.

Democracy and freedom have been widely accepted by the Chinese public, but charting a stable path with the least price to pay is also a requirement of the majority, which lays the foundation of China's political stability of today.

Granted, China has met many critical challenges, the solution of which is reforms, not revolution. Other countries' actions, whether reform or revolution, have provided China with abundant food for thought, and it will avoid falling into the same democratic trap of many countries.

Friedman has written many thought-provoking articles. But on Chinese affairs, he has much to learn.