China breaks loose from its wilderness years

By Harry Bhaskara

The following article is based on a talk given by Dr. Wang Gungwu last Friday at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and an interview with him together with Gatra magazine and Kompas daily. Dr. Wang, presently Director of the East Asian Institute of the National University of Singapore, is one of the world's renown historians on China. He was invited to Indonesia by the Panglaykim Foundation.

JAKARTA (JP): In the last two decades China has shifted from its revolutionary character colored by political rhetoric to an efficient machine.

Signs of this change have been numerous. The most recent one was from the 15th congress of the Chinese Communist Party last month. There was no reference to political reform in party chief Jiang Zemin's speech.

In the economic domain, Jiang laid out a plan to privatize China's state-owned companies. However, analysts are questioning just how much power Jiang actually wields since implementation details of his plan were absent from his speech.

Indeed, the Chinese president undoubtably has full power in his hands. The speculation stems from some who believe that Jiang is not so sure how far he could push for change.

This can be partly explained by his background. Hand-picked by Deng Xiao-ping, this engineer-turned-successful-politician from Shanghai is lacking a political base.

China's economic supremo, Zhu Rongji, is also seen as instrumental in creating a pragmatic China. His latest kudos stemmed from his success in turning China's decrepit taxation system into a workable and an efficient one -- a task needed for the last 40 years.

Tax receipts this year total more than 50 percent from what was due and it is projected that receipts will reach nearly 100 percent due next year.

Following are Dr. Wang's opinions on numerous issues:

* China's governmental evolution -- where is it heading?

The system will remain authoritarian, but the style will retain a Chinese character. The government's rhetoric on Marxism and Leninism is pretty close to meaningless. China is a very big country with a multitude of problems. It cannot copy the style of government of other countries like Singapore, Indonesia or South Korea.

* On China's wish to have a place of respect commensurate with its size and history:

The Chinese government has felt that they have been treated as an international pariah for far too long. They have been genuinely isolated from the world community. In the 1960s, for example, its only friend was Albania. It now is choosing to win a respectable place in the world. This is actually a Western frame of mind which dictates that not everybody is equal. There are always big and small powers. Equality is a fiction. That is the reality on which we live in today. So there is a "brotherhood of great powers".

* On the widely held perception of an expansionist China:

History does not project this image. Although it once was at war with Vietnam and Korea, these were very special circumstances that could not be applied generally. China's relation with Vietnam goes back to 2,000 years and further back with Korea. Relations with these two countries, therefore, have a very special character. Vietnam was conquered and ruled by China for 1,000 years. Until now, Korean and Vietnam elites still communicate in Chinese.

* On why small countries have been apprehensive about China:

It is very natural. Small countries are always worried about big countries. China is so big. This is a fact that can't be changed. And if it is rich and powerful, of course, it can be fearful.

* On whether or not China will respect its small neighbors?:

China wants to become a member of the world community just like other countries and respect the norms and values applied by the community. To have a natural fear of such a large country is normal, but to be alarmist or fear irrationally could be dangerous.

* On the claim of ownership of the Spratlys:

Nobody's claims on the islands are good. Who is right? The Philippines, China or other countries? History does not substantiate their claims. In the past, there was never a problem with the islands. The issue flared up only recently and they were based on maps made by the British, French and the Americans which differ from one another.

The ideal way to solve the issue is to go to an international court.

* On the perception among some Indonesian analysts that China has said one thing but does another on the Spratlys:

Was it a governmental policy? Who was it that was reportedly occupying the islands? Local people or entrepreneurs? I would be surprised if they were sent by the Chinese government. The government has always tried to play things cool. The best way to solve the issue is through peaceful means.

* On the June 1989 Tiananmen Square incident:

It was a decision taken by Deng Xiaoping himself after he consulted his military commanders. But student demonstrations broke out not only in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. They occurred in every city throughout the country. It was on a national scale.

The move on Tiananmen was a one-stroke action to pacify the whole nation. It was a tragedy in all respects, even to Deng himself.

The Chinese were bewildered when American public opinion turned hostile because of their use of the People's Liberation Army against unarmed students in order to restore order.

While Chinese leaders recognize the tragedy as a setback, they see it as a largely temporary failure in good management.

* On factors that turned China's economy around:

First, the bad experience during the cultural revolution drove people to loathe the central planning system and instilled an awareness that they had to make drastic changes.

The contrast between the repressive political and economical atmosphere in the old days and the sense of freedom one felt after the free market system was adopted in 1978 had unleashed tremendous energy.

Second, the Chinese had never lost their understanding of business. Unlike in Russia where the gulag (middle class) was destroyed by Stalin for 70 years (or two generations), in China it was only from 1949 to 1979 or 30 years, and that's not even a generation. They still remembered how to do business.

Third, the special economic zones designated by Deng were close to Hong Kong. This was a very brave policy for Deng to implement as he met with fierce opposition from many sides over this issue. He did not waver because he recognized that Hong Kong could be very effective in bolstering nearby economies. And, in fact, all this time relations with Hong Kong never stopped.

Fourth, in the late 1980s, Taiwan followed Hong Kong's one decade lead in investing huge capital in China.

* On the scale of investment by overseas Chinese:

The percentage is very small compared to Hong Kong and Taiwan's total investment which constitute 80 percent of foreign direct investment in China.

* On China's economic challenges:

China's economic challenges are immense. The elite is not confident whether they are able to negotiate them. And to talk about China's economic greatness would be somewhat premature. They have just started their economic development.

Among those huge challenges is how to feed 1.2 billion people and how to raise their standard of living. In the next five to ten years, the main concern revolves around giving people food and jobs.

* On why observers are so fond of projecting China to be a major economic powerhouse despite its immense domestic problems:

First, it was because of a "pure calculation" made by economists. They have been calculating the country's economic parameters like economic growth, purchasing power parity and others. They have not taken into account other realities such as potential social unrest and political instability.

How could you compete with the stability of the U.S. dollar for one?

The second reason is very controversial. I don't know the real answer but partly because the United States is the only superpower in the world.

Being a big power, it is common to see things far ahead. After the demise of the Soviet Union the question was: will America remain a superpower? If not, who might possibly take its place?

Once a scenario is envisioned (such as a new cold war between America and China), one can play war games and people sometimes get alarmed. But it is not the real thing. It's only a scenario... possibilities only.

The reality can be seen when one compares the nature of the United States' economy, scientific and technological progress and organization skills, as well as its military might with those of China. China is far behind America in all of these aspects.

* On whether the "one-country-two-systems" has worked with Hong Kong:

It is still too early to tell whether Hong Kong has successfully integrated itself into China. There have been three different opinions on the issue.

Some observers are already very optimistic about the return of the British colony to China last July, and think that it is a very good thing. However, others are very suspicious of China. A third opinion, falling between the two more extreme views, seems to incorporate a wait-and-see approach.

The catch phrase in Hong Kong aired by both the extremes was "I told you so".

Those in the middle have four cliches in their assessment of the historic event: "so far so good"; "too early to tell"; "cautiously optimistic" and "business as usual".

My answer is "too early to tell."

* On whether China's social ills such as corruption could infect Hong Kong:

It would not be easy for Hong Kong to go that direction. The former British colony has inherited a quality civil service which is very efficient.

Secondly, Hong Kong has a solid rule of law. Corruption could be curbed with a good justice system.

* On whether chief executive Tung Chee-hwa could survive next year's May 24 elections:

So far the signs are encouraging for him to survive. Many people think that he has managed the new territory well.

* On whether China is still suffering from the middle kingdom syndrome:

China has changed, the Chinese people have changed and the world has changed too. Other countries claiming powerful ancient kingdoms in their history have fallen to similar syndromes in the past.

China believes that it should come out from its long-time isolation and become a member of the world community and be accepted just like any other country.

The Chinese people know they are not the world's sole superpower because China has been defeated by other powers several times in its past history.

In the eighth century, China was defeated by an Islamic kingdom. They entered China through Xin Jiang. Later the Mongols invaded China. In modern times, it was defeated by the British in 1840 during the Opium Wars.

* On recent anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia:

China has no right to say anything about it. It is none of its business. It is a problem concerning Indonesian citizens. Indonesia has more than 200 ethnic groups and has other inter- ethnic conflicts as well. A recent conflict involved Dayaks and Madurese in Kalimantan.

Anti-Chinese unrest is just another ethnic problem. Outsiders should not interfere nor can they understand the problem. It has to be solved by Indonesia itself.

The concept of a nation state, which originated in Europe, is a new idea in Asia. Nation states are not a natural conception here, since neighboring peoples usually do not speak the same language and comprise different ethnic groups.

Even in the Europe of today, there are still problems in nation states. Look what happened to countries like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The late president Soekarno was a great man indeed. He was extremely brilliant. He virtually created a nation out of nothing.

Nation building is not an easy thing to accomplish. It is a painful process.