"..China’s forward march is unstoppable... Whether or not the EU sells weapons to China does not have much real significance for China’s defence, it is just an expression of whether or not Europe is friendly with China. ... Maybe it is only as humanity is meeting these great challenges that it can create a better international order than we have now."
Message 21283425
Chinese Nationalism Under the Shadow of Globalization
A speech delivered at the London School of Economics and Political Science,
7 February 2005
by Wang Xiaodong
1: The Origins of Contemporary Chinese Nationalism
Nationalism once occupied a relatively important place in recent Chinese history. The Qing Dynasty reformer Liang Qichao elegantly praised nationalism, and it is one of the three ideologies espoused in the ‘Three Principles of the People’ of the National Father Sun Yatsen. So nationalism was once an element of the official ideology of the KMT Nationalist Party regime that ruled China before 1949. Nevertheless, after 1949 and the establishment of the Chinese Communist Party regime, the official ideology was changed to Marxism-Leninism and the term ‘nationalism’ seemed to disappear from the life of the Chinese people. I don’t think I heard this term before I was 30 years old and of course I could not have had any idea of the concept behind it. So I never could have thought that later on I would become one of China’s ‘flag bearers of nationalism’.
Contemporary Chinese nationalism cannot have been born before the end of the 1980s. Originally this birth did not have a strong relationship with foreigners. At first it was born entirely from doubts about what I later came to call the tide of ‘reverse racism’ among China’s intellectuals. Today I cannot go into all the different manifestations of ‘reverse racism’. I can simply tell you that the 1980s was a period when all kinds of new ideas were appearing. Many of these ideas were very good, and encouraged the progress we have today. But some were quite absurd. The most absurd, but very influential - and still having a big influence on China’s intellectuals, academics and media – was that the Chinese people are somehow an inferior nation and have been so since their earliest ancestors. In my opinion, this is not very different from Hitler’s racism. Some people in the West probably still have some sympathy with this kind of attitude, although very few would dare to openly advocate it or present it as ‘science’. Nevertheless, many Chinese intellectuals at that time did openly advocate this kind of racist theory. The only difference between them and Hitler was that they directed this theory against their own race. This is why I coined the term ‘reverse racism’ for this kind of theory. I asked an American if the English version of this term is correct, and he said it is. Here today, in the hometown of the English language, I would still like to ask you whether this translation is correct. Is there a better English term to use?
In some ways it is possible to understand this thinking of Chinese intellectuals in the 1980s because they, along with the whole of China’s elite, had just emerged from the disaster of the Cultural Revolution. Having been traumatised by the hardships of the Cultural Revolution, it is understandable that they should harbour this kind of resentment of their own nation. But this kind of racist argument is without doubt wrong. The starting point of what is called contemporary ‘nationalism’ is scepticism towards this kind of racist argument. I am one of the earliest sceptics amongst Chinese intellectuals, and I am still very proud of this.
At that time we did not use the term ‘nationalism’. As I said before, we had not heard of the term. This term was in fact, applied to us by Western academics and media. Starting around the early 1990s, some Westerners began to be unhappy about our thinking (these Westerners should explain to me why they are not happy with our doubting of racism. Are they not outspoken opponents of racism? Isn’t their kind of double standard testimony to the logic of racism?). The large volume of news reports, academic papers and books attacking ‘Chinese nationalism’ came first of all from the West. Since the late 1970s, the main stream of Chinese intellectuals has been closely tied to the West. So Chinese intellectuals also joined the tide of criticising ‘Chinese nationalism’. It was only at this time that we found out that what we were thinking was called ‘nationalism’. Some people warned me that ‘nationalism’ had been a negative word in the West since World War Two due to its association with the Nazis an that Westerners use this to reprimand you, so it is best not to admit that you are a ‘nationalist’. I said that I knew this, but that Westerners have a linguistic hegemony and if you argue that you are not a ‘nationalist’, but they object that you are, what will you do? So it is best not to bother about them. If they say we are, then we are. What is most important is the content. The name you use does not matter. That is how we became ‘nationalists’.
2: Contemporary Chinese Nationalism Has Developed Following the Internet
Western scholars often say that contemporary Chinese nationalism is encouraged by the government, because the government has to consider how to replace a failed communism with a new ideology. This theory could not be further from the truth. It cannot be denied that very many of the early communists who grew up in the May Fourth movement have a small degree of nationalism in their hearts. Nevertheless, the Chinese government has never given up its original communist ideology. It has always used its original ideology to educate its members and the public, so basically it cannot talk about using nationalism to replace communist ideology. Moreover, since the late 1970s the Chinese government has strived to maintain good relations with Western states. If some among them are sympathetic to the goals of nationalism, they are not willing to allow Chinese intellectuals, and especially the ordinary people, to speak out openly about it. For a long time, therefore, Chinese nationalism has not really been able to find a channel to express itself – even now the channel is very narrow. Over 16 or 17 no more than three or four nationalist books have been published. Publishing these has not been easy at all, and often the publishers have demanded changes. Talking of my own experience, my channels for publishing articles have been very few, and often publication has only been possible due to the use of personal relationships. I noticed that just a few weeks ago that the 19 January 2005 edition of the Global Times (Huanqiu shibao), which is controlled by the People’s Daily, published an article on ‘Don’t Demonize Chinese Nationalism’ by the deputy director of the review section of the People’s Daily, Lin Zhipo, which recognises the value of Chinese nationalism. This is something very curious, because although the Global Times does not have the same status as the People’s Daily, it is still an important newspaper. And for many years before this, apart from a very few commercial newspapers, there Chinese newspapers have been silent over Chinese nationalism. (It is strange that they have not discussed American or Japanese nationalism. In my view, American and Japanese nationalism is much stronger than Chinese. Their extreme nationalists, like President Bush and Prime Minister Koizumi are at present in government). But I don’t see this single incident as representing a ‘new political direction’. I would rather see it as similar to my own experience, and expect that Mr Lin Zhipo has used his personal connections to have this article published.
Under this kind of blockade, Chinese nationalism will most probably remain submerged for a long time with no channel for transmission or space for exchange. For some time to come, written work on Chinese nationalist thinking will probably consist of just a few articles by a few others and myself who have personal connections. Nevertheless, in the last half of the 1990s a very powerful friend unexpectedly appeared. This friend was a new technology invented by Westerners – the Internet. Proof of the importance of the Internet for the development of nationalism can be found in a comment made by Li Shenzhi, the ‘Father of Chinese Liberalism’, who once said at a conference attended by myself that without the Internet there would be no Chinese nationalism. So he thought that the Internet was a very bad invention. At that time I responded by saying: Mr Li Shenzhi, this is freedom of speech. The results of free speech are not always what you like! Later Mr Li Shenzhi realised that this kind of criticism was not compatible with his liberal ideals. A friend of his conveyed this to me, saying that although Mr Li Shenzhi does not completely agree with my views, he likes the clarity and candid style of my articles. Mr Li has since passed away, but I still appreciate his courage in admitting his mistake and hope that he is resting in peace. Although there is a contradiction between Mr Li Shenzhi’s criticism and his ideals, he had the right view on the channel through which Chinese nationalism is developing. Only with the new technology of the Internet, only with the development of humanity towards the information society, can the Chinese public spontaneously develop a free space to mature their thinking. In this way contemporary Chinese nationalism has developed completely from the public sphere. Of course it cannot be said that the views of the state are spontaneous; and it cannot be said that Chinese liberalism is completely spontaneous, because it has received structural encouragement from the Western world; neither can it be said that China’s New Left is completely spontaneous, because it has received support from the Communist Party, albeit not from the mainstream. So they all have a part of the media that they can use, with the difference being just a matter of degree. Chinese nationalists, however, do not have their own media at all, but can only speak on the Internet. Precisely because it comes spontaneously from the public and has not received any systematic encouragement yet can develop to its present stage, is proof that contemporary Chinese nationalism has a solid foundation in Chinese society. Please could everybody consider this for a moment: if China became a country like the United Kingdom, with freedom to print books and publish newspapers, and even to own television stations, would Chinese nationalism be stronger or weaker?
3: The Relationship of Contemporary Chinese Nationalism With Democracy
As I said previously, contemporary Chinese nationalism has been born out of a reaction to a kind of reverse racism. Nevertheless, it cannot remain just a reaction forever. It naturally has to produce its own views on domestic politics and foreign policy. Especially since the Internet has given it a base for transmission and exchange, it has not only won a channel for expression, it has also won a space in which to develop its own intellectual content.
In contemporary China, whether or not to have a democratic system is a topic of heated debate for domestic politics. China’s so-called ‘liberals’ (I have never recognised that they are really liberals, because they do not understand what freedom of speech really means or what diversity of thought is -- they just want to put their own dictatorship in place of that of others. In those places where they have had power, they have suppressed differing opinions as ruthlessly as anyone. Of course, what is most important is the question of the system. Without a good system, whoever gets power will oppress other people. But their actions make me feel their insincerity at least). In order to demonize Chinese nationalism, they import some theories from the West, and create some of their own to maintain that nationalism is inseparable from dictatorship -- is the accomplice in crime of dictatorship. Is this true? Of course it is not. First of all, this ‘flag bearer of nationalism’ before you has never opposed democracy. Not only have I not opposed democracy, I am a staunch supporter of democracy. I sincerely feel that for China to finally become a great power in the world, for every Chinese person to be free, to be a master rather than a slave, China definitely has to become a democratic country, a united body of free people. As I see it, the aim of China becoming a free country is not a problem. The problem is through which path we are supposed to achieve this aim. Most of all I do not want the current good economic trend to be destroyed by social upheaval. Secondly, I have also seen that there are alternative views on nationalism held by some in the West. At least some Western academics think that modern nationalism was born with democracy. In the monarchical system of medieval Europe, people did not think that they were masters of the state, so they could not produce nationalist thought. It was the political transformation of the French Revolution that turned Europe towards a democratic system, allowing people to think that they were the masters of their state, giving birth to the nation-state and nationalist thought. From the completely different point of view of a Chinese person, this latter viewpoint is correct.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Britain is the birthplace of democracy so there is no need for a Chinese person to tell you about the virtues of democracy. I just want to tell you about the special significance of democracy for China, aside from its generally good points. I think there are two. First, democracy is a tide in the world that cannot be stopped. If China is to be a morally equal member of international society, accepted as wrthy of the status of a great power, then China must become a democratic country. I once said the following at a conference on ‘Great Power Strategy’: ‘The true crux of the problem is that we are not recognised as a “democratic country” by international society, and have to give up too much in international exchanges. So as not to let others use the fact that we are not a “democratic country” to range international society against us, we must enter the ranks of “democratic countries”’. (At the request of the Chinese Academy of Social Science, the paper I gave at this conference was written up as an article under the title ‘Daring to Use Force is the Only Basic Guarantee for a Peaceful Rise’ and prepared for publication. However they then changed their minds and decided that they could only publish the complete text of the English versions of papers, and only outlines of the Chinese. In the end the journal didn’t publish anything, although somebody did put my article on the Internet). Secondly, I painfully feel that my country has been divided because of the problem of democracy: there are so many Chinese who hate their own country because it has not introduced democracy. Because of this hatred, every time China has a conflict with another country, they always stand on the other side. This is really too painful. I think that in order for more Chinese people to love their country, so that they can stand on their own country’s side when China has a conflict with other countries, we must practice democracy.
This is not something that I am just saying today. Since 1999 I have written a large number of articles to say why Chinese nationalists not only should not oppose, they should support democracy. Some of these have been openly published in print. It cannot be denied that the long-term demonisation of Chinese nationalism by the ‘liberal faction’ and Westerners has caused some nationalists to develop an angry complex and come to oppose democracy. On the other hand, there are those ‘cultural nationalists’ who advocate returning to China’s traditional Confucian political system, because ‘that is Chinese’. But from start to finish I have maintained that we should not let our thinking be influenced by this kind of anger or narrow self-pride. Our aim is China’s wealth and power, for Chinese people to live a better life and have more rights. If democracy can help use to realise these aims, then we do not need to oppose it just because those who criticise us support it. Even less do we need to refuse it because it happens to have been invented by Westerners.
There is really no fundamental difference between us and the ‘liberal faction’ over the question of whether China should have democracy. The difference between us and them is: in the present international order, are the contradictions between states only limited to ideology, only limited to dictatorship versus democracy, or are there contradictions between national interests? We think that the last of these exists in the present situation and is comparatively important. Yes, the president of the United States is elected by the people. That is good and we hope that our country can be the same one day. But at the same time we should not forget, that the American President is elected by the American people, and we Chinese do not have the right to vote. So the American president can only consider the interests of the American people, and cannot consider our interests. This realisation of ours is something that most Chinese people also realise. Most Chinese people support democracy, but they also have a strong consciousness of protecting their own nation’s interests. (I can say this because I am not a ‘nationalist’ by profession, but an opinion pollster). So when it comes to the problem of the national interest, China’s ‘liberal faction’ stands unconditionally on the side of other countries (mainly the United States), which seriously dents its credibility in China (as well as this they stand unconditionally on the side of the wealthy, damaging their credibility in the eyes of the poor and the even the middle class. But this is another issue). Because of this, the faith of Chinese people in the words ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ has been damaged.
4: Chinese Nationalism Under Globalisation
For the last quarter of a century this planet has been witnessing a transformation that is unusually large in the history of humanity, especially because it is peaceful – this is the huge change that has been occurring in China. Within 20 years countless Chinese peasants have moved into the cities (in the eleven years between 1990 and 2001 alone, more than 100 million peasants have moved into cities, a rate of urbanisation faster than any other place or time in history. In the coming decades this process could be still faster. The largest and fastest urbanisation in history that is taking place in China will not only have an impact on China, it will have an impact on the whole world); in the past 20 years or so, countless high rise buildings have gone up on China’s land; in the past 20 years China has produced countless low-price goods to supply the world’s consumers, so that people have more or less forgotten what inflation is; in the past 20 years multinational corporations have made vast profits in china (such as Germany’s Volswagen, which produces 14 percent of its global production in China, but which reaps 80 percent of its global profits there). At the same time the standard of living for Chinese people has risen greatly.
There is neither need nor time enough to produce dry statistics. I can just use the feelings of us Chinese people to explain this great change. Here I would like to quote the Chinese entrepreneur Wu Kegang. This comes from his article ‘China Cries Out for Industrial Civilisation: On the Social Responsibility of Entrepreneurs’, that he wrote to encourage Chinese industry and commerce to strive to break the bureaucratic monopoly on power. While this article expresses a far from unimportant tendency in China’s social-political life in which experts on China should be very interested, this is not our topic today and I will not start to discuss it now. What I want to do here is to convey Wu’s feelings about China’s present development when he says: ‘In the 1980s I went out of China for the first time, to Singapore. Singapore is a Chinese society. I was shocked by the culture, the technological progress, the urban splendour, the vibrancy of life. At that time the members of our delegation were talking in the bar, saying “Could our country have a city like Singapore in 50 years time?” At that time our answer was in the negative. We said that it would be very hard to catch up with the basic level of Singapore of that time in 50 years, let alone the fact that Singapore would have progressed further by then. History has proven that we were too cautious, that we were wrong. It took just 25 years. Last year I went to Singapore and my view is that in some places it cannot compete with our Shenzhen, Dalian, Shanghai and Beijing’.
Yes, not so very long ago us Chinese did not dare to dream that China could develop like it has. Most Chinese people, including many nationalists, are very clear that this development cannot be separated from globalization, from international trade, and a peaceful international environment (I would like to remind you that my profession is opinion polling, so I have evidence to support this). China is a beneficiary of the present international order, so it will definitely not want to challenge that order as some have suggested. No, we want to preserve international order. We hope that this order that allows the Chinese people to use their peaceful and honest labour to gain natural resources will continue to exist.
Perhaps many people will think this strange - if this is the situation, then what is the point of Chinese nationalism? Why not be like China’s ‘liberal faction’ and say that states and nations are things of the past. Can’t we just join globalization as individuals? So I can tell you: our view is different from that because we do not believe that the Americans are angels which makes us very concerned about this one country of America preserving international order. So we want to concentrate our strengths and prepare to actively take part in preserving this international order.
Ladies and Gentlemen, living in this birthplace of modern democracy you will not be strangers to the political principles that I am going to talk about next. In domestic politics, what do we call the monopolisation of power by an individual or an organisation? We call it ‘dictatorship’. And I need say no more to you about the fact that dictatorship strips us of our rights. If we have this same political structure in international relations is there not a problem? Yes, the United States is a democratic country, but that is its domestic affair. That this superpower is the pillar of the world situation at present proves that our international order has the structure of a dictatorship. I do not think that the present American control over the world is too bad – I have already said that China is benefiting. The present American imperialism could be called a kind of enlightened dictatorship. But we are worried, because American foreign policy could change. The world situation could change. The situation of the world’s natural resources could change. If we, a big country with a quarter of the world’s people, do not have the ability to guard against this, we have a strong sense of insecurity. If the Americans really were angels, we would still be worried. Just as the political wisdom of Westerners tells us: ‘Better to have three devils fighting than one monster ruling’. So we definitely do want to take part in preserving this international order. If our present strength is not enough, we have to aim for this tomorrow.
China’s best politicians probably all think about problems in this way. Deng Xiaoping once said we should ‘conceal our abilities and bide our time’, (this is probably also a reason why nationalism is not officially supported in China), advocating that building China’s national defence should make way for economic development. Under the guidance of his development strategy, China’s economy was temporarily shifted into the low-tech stream of the international division of labour rather than upstream, which has had some temporarily negative impacts on China’s defence industries. Because of this, some Chinese nationalists and the New Left have been critical of Deng’s policies. Nevertheless, it has just come to light that China’s recently deceased former CCP general secretary, Zhao Ziyang, recalled that: ‘Deng Xiaoping’s political ideal was to have a wealthy country and strong army. He often said that when our economy is developed we will have the money to strengthen our military power. Then we can become a world great power. He wanted China to be great’. So although there might be some differences of strategy amongst China’s leading politicians when it comes to international relations, their aim is the same, to have a wealthy country and strong army and to become a great world power. This target has existed since the 1840 Opium War with Britain, and has been held over the generations regardless of party or belief. Only after the Cultural Revolution, as I explained earlier, because of the suffering experienced by China’s elite, did there appear the present division that causes so much pain. But there is plenty of evidence to show that the new generation of Chinese who did not experience such suffering do not harbour the resentment of the older elite. They will return to this aim again.
Some Chinese people will not like to hear me use the term ‘wealthy country, strong army’ (fu guo qiang bing). Some among them do not oppose this aim, but are concerned that it will add to the proof of the ‘China threat theory’. What I want to say is that in this age of rich exchange of information, such anxiety is not necessary. Just as with the recollection of Zhao Ziyang that I just cited, it should not be hard for a foreign China expert to find this on the Internet. I think that the ‘China threat theory’ is not entirely without reason. It is not at all strange that foreigners should feel worried about a country as large as China, with such rapid economic growth, with such rapidly growing demands for natural resources. It does not really matter whether we call ourselves a lamb or a tiger. Whatever, China’s development is a ‘threat’ to other countries, but it is also an opportunity. Has not China’s economic development brought benefits to other countries in the world, including Japan and the United States and Europe? Have not the goods produced by the Chinese people brought benefits to the consumers of other countries? How can ‘threat’ be turned into opportunity? This will depend on the hard work of the Chinese people, and will also depend on foreigners, especially the hard work of the advanced Western states.
5: The Problems and Debates for China on the Road to Globalisation
Ladies and Gentlemen, to be honest the first version of this speech did not include the following section. This was because I thought that there was not enough time to cover it. But when I gave it to some friends to look at to get their views, some said that I seemed to have only given the bright side and did not talk about the problems globalisation is bringing to China. I think this was a shortcoming with the first version. A Chinese nationalist especially cannot but be wary about the problems globalisation brings to China. It would be incomplete not to talk about these problems, as though something was being hidden. So I have added this section.
Chinese nationalists think that the greatest threat posed by economic globalisation for China is the location of Chinese industry is in the downstream of the international division of labour, as I said earlier. This puts our economic development under the control of others, and our scientific and technological development under the control of others, which is a threat to our national security. This debate has taken place from the beginning of the period of reform and opening down to the present. There are at least three points of view on this. The first is that in this age of the global village the world is for the taking. So long as we use our comparative advantages then its fine. We will do whatever it takes to make money in the market. This is the view of China’s ‘liberal faction’. There is an assumed premise in their view, which is that we should have a high degree of faith in the Americans and not be worried that they might control us. The Americans themselves also try to persuade us in this way. Once I came across an American diplomat who vigorously told me that ‘potato chips and silicon chips are both chips, so long as they make money there is no difference’. I said that they are not the same. If we do not sell you potato chips then you can produce them for yourself, but if you don’t sell us silicon chips we cannot suddenly make them for ourselves. He said, ‘Do you think that the US government would order Intel not to sell you chips? Don’t worry, the government cannot control them’. But I never believed him. If he is right, then why is the US government scrutinising the sale of IBM’s PC division to Lenovo? The second point of view is a bit more reasonable I think. This holds that we do not blindly trust the Americans, but that we have no alternatives at present. China cannot shoulder the burden of using its national power rather than market forces to gain high technology in an unconventional way. China must patiently bide its time and use its comparative advantage in low technology until it has the money to move to high-tech. I think that Deng Xiaoping is representative of this point of view. Although the assumptions are different, when they become economic policy the results of the first and second views are the same. The third point of view is that China must use its national power to advance to high-tech development in an unconventional way, otherwise it will be controlled by the United States and other advanced countries and will lose the possibility of advancing to high-tech in the future. Ten years ago I was one of those who advocated this third point of view. As everyone knows, the first and second points of view became dominant in China’s economic policy. Because I was on the losing side I stopped taking part in economic debates and my personal profession and career were greatly affected. I still do not think that the first point of view is worth arguing about, and that the second point of view is taking a big risk over whether our economy and technology will be controlled by the United States making us their subsidiary, or whether we can ultimately use foreign investment to attain even faster progress. Looking back over the past ten years, I do not think we can say that China has already won this bet, although the chances of victory are very large because China is already showing signs of moving towards high technology under market forces. If China can win this gamble in the end I will be very happy because, although my point of view lost, my nation will be the winner. If China does not win, then people can go back to read my old articles. I have already been farsighted enough to prepare them as a prescription. It is unlikely that China will lose everything. With these prescriptions it might be possible to recover some of the money staked in the bet.
The second problem that China faces on the road to globalisation is environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources. This is related to the survival of every one of us who live in China of course we want to preserve the environment and save natural resource. However, I cannot accept some of the accusations about China destroying the environment that are made by some foreigners and some of those ‘reverse racists’ that I spoke about earlier. I often hear some foreigners and some Chinese say that this planet cannot absorb another America of 1.3 billion people. If the Chinese have the same style of life as the Americans, what will the world be like? This is true, an American consumes tens or hundreds of times more natural resources in their life than a Chinese person. If the Chinese deplete natural resources like the Americans, then anything can happen to this world. Nevertheless, I think the problem lies in who decides that only the Americans have the right to consume so many resources? Is it God? Does not the American ‘Declaration of Independence’ say that all men are created equal? It does not look like God has made these regulations. So we distribute the resources of the planet according to what? Does it depend on market competition or on military supremacy? Whichever it is, we Chinese are willing to face the challenge. If you say that this talk about ‘unfairness’ is just from a few Chinese intellectuals, there are 1.3 billion people who may not use the same words but who use their quiet and hard labour to say ‘no, we do not accept this arrangement, we want the same kind of life as the Americans. If there is not enough for me, then I want there to be enough for my children and grandchildren’. Many Chinese intellectuals implore them not to want this kind of life, deploying Western thinkers, Buddhism, and the Chinese philosophers Laozi, Zhuangzi, Confucius, Mencius, and even Mao Zedong. But nobody can persuade them. I think that using this kind of argument to persuade them not to raise their standard of living is not as good as thinking scientifically about a way to let the Chinese and people all over the world to live like the Americans while conserving the earth. The countries with advanced technology should speed up and make less expensive the transfer of conservation technology. This will not only help save the developing countries, it will also save them. Money and technology can save some problems. By the housing complex in my neighbourhood there is a river that used to be very smeally. But in 2002, within a year, it was controlled so that it is no longer smelly. Because Beijing has money it is possible to control the pollution into this river very quickly. But there are many places in China that do not have this kind of money. If working with this kind of technology is not enough to solve problems, then international society needs to discuss a complete system for controlling pollution and distributing natural resources. The majority of people must feel that this is fair, otherwise it will be hard for this world to maintain long-term peace and stability.
The third problem faced by China on this road is what people often refer to as the widening wealth gap. China’s Left wing has probably done more research on this problem. What they have to say on this is probably more appropriate than what I have to say. All I can simply say is that the biggest problem on China’s road forward at present is domestic politics, how to establish a society that guarantees a certain standard of living for every person, for all to have full degree of freedom, and for all to use their abilities to the full. This will be enough to allow our society to really be peaceful and stable and allow the Chinese people to more fully identify with their country. As for how to create this kind of society, I have already spoken about the relationship between nationalism and democracy. In China there is of course another way of thinking about how to solve these problems, which is to return to the road of Mao Zedong. But at present, because China can maintain a sufficiently rapid rate of economic growth this option will just remain in the mouths of some disadvantaged minorities and intellectuals. As for those peasants on low incomes, they will pragmatically come to the cities to labour in order to improve their lives. Although this is very hard, it is more practical than waiting for another Mao. However, if China’s economic development hits a serious obstacle, then things could change in a big way.
There is one other problem that a friend reminded me about. There could be some in the audience from the Third World. And there have already been some people in the Third World who have reprimanded china for joining the advanced countries in plundering the Third World. I should pay attention to this problem. I want to sincerely say to my poor brothers and sisters in the Third World, China forgot about you a long time ago. Although incomes in China are still smaller than those in many Third World countries, China is on the express train to globalization. So no anti-globalisation movement can form in China like that in Latin America, or even like those in Europe and the United States. The Chinese already think that they are a little different from the rest of the Third World. Although incomes at present are comparatively low, Chinese people feel that there is most likely no need for them to express dissatisfaction about this world order. They just need to maintain their present attitude of patiently working and biding their time to greatly improve their lives. So they lack sympathy with the problems of the Third World. On the other hand they feel that they have not yet reached a level of wealth at which they can donate money to help the Third World. ‘Let the better off Western countries handle this issue’ is the thinking of many Chinese. Nevertheless, I think that China’s development is of benefit to the Third World states and not disadvantageous. First of all, looking at what is in front of us, China’s fast development can raise the prices of commodities and goods from the Third World. Moreover, if China really does get big and powerful, the Third World will have more choices: if the United States does not treat you well, you can seek help from China. If China does not treat you well, you can seek help from the United States. In this way a balance of power can be created which will be beneficial for the democratization of the structure of international politics. In the long term, the advanced Western countries and China should all work for an international order that will be better for the Third World. I often used to say that this is America’s affair. I hope that one day China will also have enough economic and political power to handle these issues.
6: Conclusion
Ladies and Gentlemen, China is still a developing country and has countless problems. I have more than a little knowledge of these problems, so I am often very critical of China (when I speak to the overseas Chinese students I will mainly talk about the present problems). Nevertheless, despite these problems I believe that China’s forward march is unstoppable. This is so in economics, in politics and in national defence (Whether or not the EU sells weapons to China does not have much real significance for China’s defence, it is just an expression of whether or not Europe is friendly with China. Just as with China’s economic development, once China devotes resources in this direction, its progress can be faster than what the experts predict). In the next few decades, the Chinese must use their honest labour to obtain large amounts of natural resources. If this process is obstructed then it means that China’s existence is being challenged. The Chinese and the Westerners must work hard to research how the world can cope with the economic, political and other impacts of the rapid development of a country with a population as large as China’s. Some problems are already imminent, such as China’s oil imports. If China unilaterally restricts its demand as some conservationists in China have suggested, then this will be unfair, as I said earlier (Why is it only the Americans who have the right to consume so much oil? Why is it that we cannot use our honest labour to obtain oil?), and not realistic (Who will be able to persuade 1.3 billion people to suspend their development?). Without doubt, China needs the help of the advanced countries with this kind of problem. And when the advanced countries are helping china, they are helping themselves.
Maybe it is only as humanity is meeting these great challenges that it can create a better international order than we have now.
Thank you.
(Translated from the Chinese by Dr Christopher R. Hughes, London School of Economics and Political Science) |
