China breaks loose from its wilderness years<\/p>\n
By Harry Bhaskara<\/p>\n
The following article is based on a talk given by Dr. Wang
\nGungwu last Friday at the Centre for Strategic and International
\nStudies and an interview with him together with Gatra magazine
\nand Kompas daily. Dr. Wang, presently Director of the East Asian
\nInstitute of the National University of Singapore, is one of the
\nworld's renown historians on China. He was invited to Indonesia
\nby the Panglaykim Foundation.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): In the last two decades China has shifted from
\nits revolutionary character colored by political rhetoric to an
\nefficient machine.<\/p>\n
Signs of this change have been numerous. The most recent one
\nwas from the 15th congress of the Chinese Communist Party last
\nmonth. There was no reference to political reform in party chief
\nJiang Zemin's speech.<\/p>\n
In the economic domain, Jiang laid out a plan to privatize
\nChina's state-owned companies. However, analysts are questioning
\njust how much power Jiang actually wields since implementation
\ndetails of his plan were absent from his speech.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the Chinese president undoubtably has full power in
\nhis hands. The speculation stems from some who believe that Jiang
\nis not so sure how far he could push for change.<\/p>\n
This can be partly explained by his background. Hand-picked by
\nDeng Xiao-ping, this engineer-turned-successful-politician from
\nShanghai is lacking a political base.<\/p>\n
China's economic supremo, Zhu Rongji, is also seen as
\ninstrumental in creating a pragmatic China. His latest kudos
\nstemmed from his success in turning China's decrepit taxation
\nsystem into a workable and an efficient one -- a task needed for
\nthe last 40 years.<\/p>\n
Tax receipts this year total more than 50 percent from what
\nwas due and it is projected that receipts will reach nearly 100
\npercent due next year.<\/p>\n
Following are Dr. Wang's opinions on numerous issues:<\/p>\n
* China's governmental evolution -- where is it heading?<\/p>\n
The system will remain authoritarian, but the style will
\nretain a Chinese character. The government's rhetoric on Marxism
\nand Leninism is pretty close to meaningless. China is a very big
\ncountry with a multitude of problems. It cannot copy the style of
\ngovernment of other countries like Singapore, Indonesia or South
\nKorea.<\/p>\n
* On China's wish to have a place of respect commensurate with
\nits size and history:<\/p>\n
The Chinese government has felt that they have been treated as
\nan international pariah for far too long. They have been
\ngenuinely isolated from the world community. In the 1960s, for
\nexample, its only friend was Albania. It now is choosing to win a
\nrespectable place in the world. This is actually a Western frame
\nof mind which dictates that not everybody is equal. There are
\nalways big and small powers. Equality is a fiction. That is the
\nreality on which we live in today. So there is a "brotherhood of
\ngreat powers".<\/p>\n
* On the widely held perception of an expansionist China:<\/p>\n
History does not project this image. Although it once was at
\nwar with Vietnam and Korea, these were very special circumstances
\nthat could not be applied generally. China's relation with
\nVietnam goes back to 2,000 years and further back with Korea.
\nRelations with these two countries, therefore, have a very
\nspecial character. Vietnam was conquered and ruled by China for
\n1,000 years. Until now, Korean and Vietnam elites still
\ncommunicate in Chinese.<\/p>\n
* On why small countries have been apprehensive about China:<\/p>\n
It is very natural. Small countries are always worried about
\nbig countries. China is so big. This is a fact that can't be
\nchanged. And if it is rich and powerful, of course, it can be
\nfearful.<\/p>\n
* On whether or not China will respect its small neighbors?:<\/p>\n
China wants to become a member of the world community just
\nlike other countries and respect the norms and values applied by
\nthe community. To have a natural fear of such a large country is
\nnormal, but to be alarmist or fear irrationally could be
\ndangerous.<\/p>\n
* On the claim of ownership of the Spratlys:<\/p>\n
Nobody's claims on the islands are good. Who is right? The
\nPhilippines, China or other countries? History does not
\nsubstantiate their claims. In the past, there was never a problem
\nwith the islands. The issue flared up only recently and they were
\nbased on maps made by the British, French and the Americans which
\ndiffer from one another.<\/p>\n
The ideal way to solve the issue is to go to an international
\ncourt.<\/p>\n
* On the perception among some Indonesian analysts that China has
\nsaid one thing but does another on the Spratlys:<\/p>\n
Was it a governmental policy? Who was it that was reportedly
\noccupying the islands? Local people or entrepreneurs? I would be
\nsurprised if they were sent by the Chinese government. The
\ngovernment has always tried to play things cool. The best way to
\nsolve the issue is through peaceful means.<\/p>\n
* On the June 1989 Tiananmen Square incident:<\/p>\n
It was a decision taken by Deng Xiaoping himself after he
\nconsulted his military commanders. But student demonstrations
\nbroke out not only in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. They occurred
\nin every city throughout the country. It was on a national scale.<\/p>\n
The move on Tiananmen was a one-stroke action to pacify the
\nwhole nation. It was a tragedy in all respects, even to Deng
\nhimself.<\/p>\n
The Chinese were bewildered when American public opinion
\nturned hostile because of their use of the People's Liberation
\nArmy against unarmed students in order to restore order.<\/p>\n
While Chinese leaders recognize the tragedy as a setback, they
\nsee it as a largely temporary failure in good management.<\/p>\n
* On factors that turned China's economy around:<\/p>\n
First, the bad experience during the cultural revolution drove
\npeople to loathe the central planning system and instilled an
\nawareness that they had to make drastic changes.<\/p>\n
The contrast between the repressive political and economical
\natmosphere in the old days and the sense of freedom one felt
\nafter the free market system was adopted in 1978 had unleashed
\ntremendous energy.<\/p>\n
Second, the Chinese had never lost their understanding of
\nbusiness. Unlike in Russia where the gulag (middle class) was
\ndestroyed by Stalin for 70 years (or two generations), in China
\nit was only from 1949 to 1979 or 30 years, and that's not even a
\ngeneration. They still remembered how to do business.<\/p>\n
Third, the special economic zones designated by Deng were
\nclose to Hong Kong. This was a very brave policy for Deng to
\nimplement as he met with fierce opposition from many sides over
\nthis issue. He did not waver because he recognized that Hong Kong
\ncould be very effective in bolstering nearby economies. And, in
\nfact, all this time relations with Hong Kong never stopped.<\/p>\n
Fourth, in the late 1980s, Taiwan followed Hong Kong's one
\ndecade lead in investing huge capital in China.<\/p>\n
* On the scale of investment by overseas Chinese:<\/p>\n
The percentage is very small compared to Hong Kong and
\nTaiwan's total investment which constitute 80 percent of foreign
\ndirect investment in China.<\/p>\n
* On China's economic challenges:<\/p>\n
China's economic challenges are immense. The elite is not
\nconfident whether they are able to negotiate them. And to talk
\nabout China's economic greatness would be somewhat premature.
\nThey have just started their economic development.<\/p>\n
Among those huge challenges is how to feed 1.2 billion people
\nand how to raise their standard of living. In the next five to
\nten years, the main concern revolves around giving people food
\nand jobs.<\/p>\n
* On why observers are so fond of projecting China to be a major
\neconomic powerhouse despite its immense domestic problems:<\/p>\n
First, it was because of a "pure calculation" made by
\neconomists. They have been calculating the country's economic
\nparameters like economic growth, purchasing power parity and
\nothers. They have not taken into account other realities such as
\npotential social unrest and political instability.<\/p>\n
How could you compete with the stability of the U.S. dollar
\nfor one?<\/p>\n
The second reason is very controversial. I don't know the real
\nanswer but partly because the United States is the only
\nsuperpower in the world.<\/p>\n
Being a big power, it is common to see things far ahead. After
\nthe demise of the Soviet Union the question was: will America
\nremain a superpower? If not, who might possibly take its place?<\/p>\n
Once a scenario is envisioned (such as a new cold war between
\nAmerica and China), one can play war games and people sometimes
\nget alarmed. But it is not the real thing. It's only a
\nscenario... possibilities only.<\/p>\n
The reality can be seen when one compares the nature of the
\nUnited States' economy, scientific and technological progress and
\norganization skills, as well as its military might with those of
\nChina. China is far behind America in all of these aspects.<\/p>\n
* On whether the "one-country-two-systems" has worked with Hong
\nKong:<\/p>\n
It is still too early to tell whether Hong Kong has
\nsuccessfully integrated itself into China. There have been three
\ndifferent opinions on the issue.<\/p>\n
Some observers are already very optimistic about the return of
\nthe British colony to China last July, and think that it is a
\nvery good thing. However, others are very suspicious of China. A
\nthird opinion, falling between the two more extreme views, seems
\nto incorporate a wait-and-see approach.<\/p>\n
The catch phrase in Hong Kong aired by both the extremes was
\n"I told you so".<\/p>\n
Those in the middle have four cliches in their assessment of
\nthe historic event: "so far so good"; "too early to tell";
\n"cautiously optimistic" and "business as usual".<\/p>\n
My answer is "too early to tell."<\/p>\n
* On whether China's social ills such as corruption could infect
\nHong Kong:<\/p>\n
It would not be easy for Hong Kong to go that direction. The
\nformer British colony has inherited a quality civil service which
\nis very efficient.<\/p>\n
Secondly, Hong Kong has a solid rule of law. Corruption could
\nbe curbed with a good justice system.<\/p>\n
* On whether chief executive Tung Chee-hwa could survive next
\nyear's May 24 elections:<\/p>\n
So far the signs are encouraging for him to survive. Many
\npeople think that he has managed the new territory well.<\/p>\n
* On whether China is still suffering from the middle kingdom
\nsyndrome:<\/p>\n
China has changed, the Chinese people have changed and the
\nworld has changed too. Other countries claiming powerful ancient
\nkingdoms in their history have fallen to similar syndromes in the
\npast.<\/p>\n
China believes that it should come out from its long-time
\nisolation and become a member of the world community and be
\naccepted just like any other country.<\/p>\n
The Chinese people know they are not the world's sole
\nsuperpower because China has been defeated by other powers
\nseveral times in its past history.<\/p>\n
In the eighth century, China was defeated by an Islamic
\nkingdom. They entered China through Xin Jiang. Later the Mongols
\ninvaded China. In modern times, it was defeated by the British in
\n1840 during the Opium Wars.<\/p>\n
* On recent anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia:<\/p>\n
China has no right to say anything about it. It is none of its
\nbusiness. It is a problem concerning Indonesian citizens.
\nIndonesia has more than 200 ethnic groups and has other inter-
\nethnic conflicts as well. A recent conflict involved Dayaks and
\nMadurese in Kalimantan.<\/p>\n
Anti-Chinese unrest is just another ethnic problem. Outsiders
\nshould not interfere nor can they understand the problem. It has
\nto be solved by Indonesia itself.<\/p>\n
The concept of a nation state, which originated in Europe, is
\na new idea in Asia. Nation states are not a natural conception
\nhere, since neighboring peoples usually do not speak the same
\nlanguage and comprise different ethnic groups.<\/p>\n
Even in the Europe of today, there are still problems in
\nnation states. Look what happened to countries like
\nCzechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The late president Soekarno was a
\ngreat man indeed. He was extremely brilliant. He virtually
\ncreated a nation out of nothing.<\/p>\n
Nation building is not an easy thing to accomplish. It is a
\npainful process.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/china-breaks-loose-from-its-wilderness-years-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}