China breaks loose from its wilderness years

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.