In fact, China's epochial era of reform and opening-up was one of moving from a weak to a strong(er) China together with moving from a bad to a better China. We can feel good about China's achievements today mainly because of this twin-tracked progress. The history of the reform and opening-up was, in fact, a case of "better" governance leading to a stronger China and not the other way round.
The "other way round" was tried by Mao during the late 1950s and the early 1960s when China tried to be "strong" militarily and politically/diplomatically even at the price of millions of lives of its people. At that time, there were many people who honestly thought China was becoming strong. But with the benefit of hindsight, we recognize that kind of "strength" is not real. Simply put: strength, if pursued as an end in itself, is not real strength. If a nation is power-hungry, how can that nation be considered strong? The same was echoed in today's North Korea and in yesterday's Stalinist USSR and Militaristic Japan.
Neither of us are starry eyed idealists and philosophers who feel that national "virtue" can somehow redeem the suffering of its people. Almost always, the suffering are real but the virtue are not. Interestingly, the Maoist-era of perpetual revolution and class struggle provides the most recent example. Just last weekend, I had a conversation with a friend - who had the (mis)fortune of having been a Canadian diplomat in both North Korea and Cuba - but who is deeply uncomfortable with the notion of a benevolent dictatorship. And I defended the idea that the form of government matter less than whether it is concerned about the welfare and development of its people. In fact, Cuba and North Korean are excellent contrasting examples. This is consistent with ancient Chinese political thinking that emphasized governance over the finer questions of political legitimacy although Confucius actually stressed a lot about public opinion/will of the people.
Virtue by itself is not to be confused with "Good", and vice-versa. When KY considered the binary choice between a Good/Weak China and a Bad/Strong; I think he meant perferring one that is less virtuous but strong enough to safeguard its people over a virtuous but weak China. And I ask myself, how can a nation be virtuous/good if it cannot safeguard its people? To me, the conundrum does not exist because part of "Strong" is protecting the "Good".
China today is both more "Strong" and more "Good" than ever. But if it wants to get to the next level - to either be a great power or even the worl'd's pre-eminent power, it cannot simply be more of the same of what it is currently. There should be a positive purpose for China's continuing growth for the Chinese people and also for the world, rather than being a power for power's own sake. As the saying goes, along with great power comes great responsibility. I am a believer that in the coming years, the challenge for the Chinese leadership/nation will be to find the direction of what a "Good" China ultimately means.
Here I was negligent in not explaining the logic behind it earlier. In human history, power shifts are rarely peaceful. Most rising powers were in fact short-lived because they were either pushed back by the status quo or overtaken by other rivals. Unless a nation is inconsequential or very isolated/disconnected from the existing webs of interests, the result of its expansion is usually one of disastrous internal or external conflict. The logic is that as a nation grows (diplomatically, militarily and economically) it will inevitably encroach the space and threaten existing powers, even in the absence of a zero sum game. The other threat, as often happen, is that even as nations become "Strong" they would "lose steam", become venal and corrupt or plunge into internal conflict. This is why so many empires are rarely even remembered.
Rarely do powers emerge and remain sustainable more than a few decades on sheer wealth and military power alone without "that something else". Throughout human history, "That something else" is almost always an idea - it could be a philosophy, an insight, a system or a technology. I do not only mean ideology. "That something else" is not always more virtuous than the status quo but it is a force-multiplier for the power having it and others wanted it too. In fact, the best and most compelling ideas confers strength without requiring any force; they work their magic via the power of example and by creating a desire to emulate.
For much of its history, the greatest source of China's power was the richness of its civilization and culture, e.g. during the T'ang Dynasty. Having states the sends tributes are victories that required no force. China's height of territorial reach during the Han dynasty was due to the maturity of another idea - the centralised administration and civil service - as an alternative to the fractious feudal system.
Rome had a powerful and ruthless army, but it also offered the lure of being an empowered "citizen" of a republic and the rule of law which is vastly more attractive than life under tribal serfdom of its rivals. Rome's advanced engineering, logistics and commerce improved welfare and protected against starvation. Rome lasted more than 800 years.
Many of the waves of empires that followed were led by different religious ideas - not very convincing but effective nonetheless at the time. The Arabs had the Islamic religion (considered attractive and enlightened at the time because it was against slavery) but they also pioneered international trade. Nationalism was often the idea - often used by one monarch or regional power - to consolidated many parts of Europe and Asia into their current political entities. Europe gained military and economic strengths through science and technology - but the promise of modernity arguably did more to help them colonize the world. The Enlightenment offered an escape from religious oppression in thought and lifestyle. The industrial revolution multiplied human productivity and enabled the individual to accumulate wealth without being tied to the land. For millions, it meant jobs, material wealth but also freedom from peasantry. Along the way, came the modern rule of law, constitutional governments, equality, civil and political rights, social democracy, the global-economy and democracy - all very powerful ideas that allowed the West and later America to prevail because they were so attractive to the rest of the world.
For much of its history, the greatest source of China's power was the richness of its civilization and culture, e.g. during the T'ang Dynasty. Having states the sends tributes are victories that required no force. China's height of territorial reach during the Han dynasty was due to the maturity of another idea - the centralised administration and civil service - as an alternative to the fractious feudal system.
Rome had a powerful and ruthless army, but it also offered the lure of being an empowered "citizen" of a republic and the rule of law which is vastly more attractive than life under tribal serfdom of its rivals. Rome's advanced engineering, logistics and commerce improved welfare and protected against starvation. Rome lasted more than 800 years.
Many of the waves of empires that followed were led by different religious ideas - not very convincing but effective nonetheless at the time. The Arabs had the Islamic religion (considered attractive and enlightened at the time because it was against slavery) but they also pioneered international trade. Nationalism was often the idea - often used by one monarch or regional power - to consolidated many parts of Europe and Asia into their current political entities. Europe gained military and economic strengths through science and technology - but the promise of modernity arguably did more to help them colonize the world. The Enlightenment offered an escape from religious oppression in thought and lifestyle. The industrial revolution multiplied human productivity and enabled the individual to accumulate wealth without being tied to the land. For millions, it meant jobs, material wealth but also freedom from peasantry. Along the way, came the modern rule of law, constitutional governments, equality, civil and political rights, social democracy, the global-economy and democracy - all very powerful ideas that allowed the West and later America to prevail because they were so attractive to the rest of the world.
I believe the key to China's peaceful rise, is to somehow be a source of positive contribution to the world. China's growth must serve a larger purpose in order to provide a balance to self-interest; which otherwise would be a source of internal conflicts. Many nations - especially in Latin America - lose their way a certain point of their development because development was built on a weak sense of common purpose.
Externally, the thing with China is that it has never been and will never be an inconsequential nation - not even when it was at its most feeble. The lesson from the last 30 years is that an isolated China is a weak China that cannot take care of its people. The lesson for the past 15 years is that China can succeed when it plays its role judiciously on the world stage (especially in the global economy). China no longer has the choice to simply mind its own business because China is becoming so huge that in the globalized and inter-connected world today that its actions or inactions impacts everyone else's. This also means that whenever conflicts arise, they cannot be resolved by protecting only China's national self-interest alone - China's national interests will increasingly be intertwined with its responsibility to look after the world's collective interests as well. So one way or the other, China will need to have a vision of how to contributions will be to the global system that is making its growth possible.
Externally, the thing with China is that it has never been and will never be an inconsequential nation - not even when it was at its most feeble. The lesson from the last 30 years is that an isolated China is a weak China that cannot take care of its people. The lesson for the past 15 years is that China can succeed when it plays its role judiciously on the world stage (especially in the global economy). China no longer has the choice to simply mind its own business because China is becoming so huge that in the globalized and inter-connected world today that its actions or inactions impacts everyone else's. This also means that whenever conflicts arise, they cannot be resolved by protecting only China's national self-interest alone - China's national interests will increasingly be intertwined with its responsibility to look after the world's collective interests as well. So one way or the other, China will need to have a vision of how to contributions will be to the global system that is making its growth possible.
1 comment:
Thanks for making the effort to describe the terminlogy to the beginners!
water bath manufacturers
Post a Comment