By Yang Wenchang
In less than two decades since the end of the Cold War, Western
media and academic circles have misread China three times.
An objective review and analysis of these misconceptions will
help us better appreciate China's way of building socialism with
Chinese characteristics, and reinforce our commitment to peace,
development and cooperation, and to building a harmonious
world.
?
The first misreading was "the coming collapse of China".
The late 1980s and early 1990s saw political turmoil in Eastern
Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. And the June 4th
incident occurred in Beijing in late spring and early summer in
1989. Western media and many China watchers came to the conclusion
that following the Soviet Union's collapse, it would only be a
matter of time before Communist-led China met the same destiny.
The US government then imposed sanctions against China, followed
by many other Western countries. Despite enormous international
pressure, the Chinese government did not fall like the former
Soviet Union, as many had predicted in the West. On the contrary,
China maintained political stability and robust economic growth and
was increasingly assuming a solid position in the international
arena. To explain this, I would cite the following three
factors.
First, Western scholars failed to grasp the fact that the June
4th incident was not in keeping with the fundamental interests of
the Chinese people. Adhering to the path of developing socialism
with Chinese characteristics best suited China's national
conditions. Eleven years of reform and opening-up had led most of
the people in China to understand that their nation could only
succeed by advancing reforms in the political, economic and other
areas in an environment of stability and national unity. It was on
the basis of this understanding that most Chinese did not support
acts that would destabilize the nation.
Second, Western scholars, obsessed with an ideological
perspective, confused the Chinese model with that of the Soviet
Union and failed to appreciate the strategy of reform and
opening-up initiated by Deng Xiaoping. It was based on no other
than a negation of the over-centralized Soviet model of planned
economy.
Third, in a globalized world, countries are increasingly
interdependent. Business communities and consumers in these
countries do not see it in their own interests to bring about the
collapse of China with sanctions or even the curtailing of its
growth. Thus political leaders in these countries often voiced
doubt themselves about whether sanctions would work at all.
In less than three years, Western sanctions came to nothing.
China defied Western pressure and predictions of its demise.
The second misreading was the "China threat" theory.
This theory that emerged in countries like the United States and
Japan in the late 1990s persisted into the early 21st century. The
main arguments of the theory were: first, China's economy had seen
fast growth in two decades and would soon catch up with the United
States, Japan and Germany, and China's rapid development and its
growing national strength would pose a serious threat to the
international status of developed Western countries; second, China
had turned itself into a "world factory" with inexhaustible labor
and cheap land and was exporting cheap consumer goods, which put
the squeeze on manufacturing industries in the West; third, China
was running a huge trade surplus, undercutting developed countries'
dominance of the world market; fourth, China was faced with
bottlenecks in energy and resources and would inevitably compete
for resources worldwide with developed countries; and fifth,
China's national strength was growing with the rapid economic
development but its defense expenditure remained
"non-transparent".
Influenced by the above arguments, governments of major Western
countries, with the US taking the lead, formulated their two-sided
China strategies featuring "containment plus engagement". In the
military field, "containment" was mainly exercised through the
setting-up of an "Asian version of NATO" with military alliance
among the United States, Japan and Australia at the center to guard
against enhanced military power of China; in the economic field,
"containment" was mainly about limiting imports from China,
pressuring China to revalue the RMB, not recognizing China's market
economy status and restricting high-tech exports to China.
"Engagement" in the political field means maintaining normal
state-to-state relations with China and trying to incorporate China
into the international order dominated by US-led Western countries.
In the economic field, "engagement" requires active investment in
China and trading with China.
The two-sided China policy of US-led Western countries could not
possibly achieve its aim. There are five reasons.
First, China has always valued its independence since ancient
times and the Chinese nation will not change the direction of its
development according to the will of others. China sticks to the
path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. This is determined
by China's national conditions.
Second, in terms of the economic system, China has gradually
introduced market mechanisms. All imports and exports of Chinese
enterprises follow the basic rules of the game of a market economy.
Therefore, the West's economic "containment" of China is
groundless.
Third, though China has become a trading power in the world,
over 60 percent of its high-value-added exports come from
foreign-funded companies. Western investors generally ship large
quantities of parts and components into China to finish the final
assembly here with cheap labor and preferential taxation policy and
then export these products with a "Made in China" label on
them.
Fourth, Western analysts tend to emphasize the threat of
competition by Chinese commodities but overlook the fact that China
is the largest importer in Asia. China's fast economic development
is greatly enhancing the consumption capacity of 1.3 billion
people, which is not a threat but a rare opportunity to the
economies of Europe, the US and Japan.
Fifth, many Western observers have doubts about China's
much-reiterated commitment to peaceful development, leading to
confusion in Western public opinion on China. China has resolved to
pursue a peaceful development consistent with its national
condition, history and tradition, and the basic characteristics of
the times.
The third misreading is that "China should assume more
responsibilities".
In 2005, US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoelick put forward
the now well-known idea that China should become a "responsible
stakeholder". A closer look at this term shows that on the one
hand, it recognizes the economic achievements made by China in the
past 30 years or so and the fact that China has become an important
member of the international community, which is a big step forward.
Yet on the other hand, it implies doubts about whether China will
fulfill the international responsibilities they think China should
undertake. Some talked about guiding China in exercising its
responsibilities. Others criticized China's "irresponsible
behavior" in many areas, and still others pointed an accusing
finger at China's Africa policy, saying it failed to meet Western
standards. This is obviously unfair. We should approach the issue
from the following aspects:
First, in political and security areas, as a permanent member of
the UN Security Council, China has faithfully observed the basic
principles of the UN Charter and honored its responsibility toward
world peace. In its foreign policy, China always maintains that
international conflicts and disputes should be resolved through
peaceful negotiation, and opposes the use or threat of force. China
has settled historical border disputes with most of its neighbors
through peaceful negotiation. On the Korean Peninsula nuclear
issue, the Iranian nuclear issue and other hot issues, China stands
for upholding the integrity of relevant international treaties and
is firmly opposed to nuclear proliferation, and has been working
for their resolution through peaceful negotiation.
On issues such as countering terrorism and containing spread of
diseases, China has taken an active part in international
cooperation with the US and other Western countries. Another fact
worth mentioning is that China is a major contributor to UN
peacekeeping forces.
Second, in the economic field, although some Western countries
still do not recognize China as a market economy, China, as a WTO
member, has always acted in compliance with prevailing
international market rules. China launched financial and monetary
reforms and introduced a floating RMB exchange rate regime in line
with its stage of economic development.
In the energy field, the Chinese government has not only
included in its 11th Five-Year Plan a mandatory target of lowering
energy consumption per unit of GDP, but also expressed on many
occasions its willingness to cooperate with other countries, in
energy saving, developing alternative energy and strengthening
environmental protection.
Third, China follows a scientific thinking on development. China
has indeed encountered severe constraints on its development in the
areas of energy, resources and environment. But China will be able
to transform its inefficient growth pattern into an efficient and
environment-friendly model of economic development. China will not
shift its problems to other countries. Even less will China seek
development by plundering others.
Fourth, China's assistance to Africa and China-Africa trade
keeps expanding every year as China's economy grows. This is quite
normal in South-South cooperation. However, some European scholars
have made irresponsible comments on China-Africa relations. In
those people's minds, China would be responsible only when it dealt
with its relations with Africa in line with Western values, and
non-interference in Africa's internal affairs would be equal to
irresponsibility. China is not against development of democracy in
African countries. However, more important than the specific forms
of democracy is whether real benefits can be brought to 800 million
people in Africa as a result. Once Africa attains fast development,
democracy on that continent will be greatly promoted.
?
The author is president of the Chinese People's Institute of
Foreign Affairs.
(China Daily July 9, 2007)
