Long before President Nixon’s first trip to China, we in the West developed the habit of trying to interpret Beijing’s ideas and actions as if we were reading tea leaves.
We looked at China and wove our own picture of its workings and motivations claiming that it is the only recourse in deciphering an opaque and “inscrutable” society. Viewing China through the looking glass of our own perceptions and values has not always been helpful, too often we have seen what we wanted to see.
As China’s influence waxes and ours wanes we need to see China clearly. We need to understand that China is an evolving construct of ideological elements and pragmatic policies applied to an old and unique culture, not a competing political ideology or business model. Instead of reading tea leaves we need to begin a dialog with Chinese political, business and social thinkers about the China Construct in the post crisis world.
At the moment there are two reflections we need to see quite clearly: our own and China’s. The Bush administration’s policies and actions following 9/11 have been a story about political miscalculation and economic malfeasance that plunged the world into economic and political chaos. In contrast, China’s pragmatic policies and measured actions have been a rock in an otherwise unstable sea.
Our challenge is to move beyond the post World War II paradigm, which has failed us, and define new values and goals which fit with the dynamics of the times we are in. China’s struggle is with its newfound political and economic prominence, which is at odds with its self perception and is creating unwanted and unrealistic expectations both internally and externally.
Sixty years ago, fueled by communist socialist ideology, China embarked on a bold reshaping of its social, economic and political system, with mixed success. Thirty years later, China adopted a more pragmatic approach to economic and social issues resulting in one of the most profound economic transformations in modern history.
This year, as the People’s Republic of China celebrates the 60th year of its founding, it finds itself thrust onto the world stage in a new evolving role. What will the next 30 years hold? In an attempt to begin the dialog the following questions were developed. The answers will appear in a book to be published this year.
The idea of a China Construct is being advanced in place of other western concepts like the Beijing Consensus and China Inc. The assumption is that the path China has taken defies any attempt to define its actions and policies as part of an ideological doctrine. In the west we tend to look at political, economic and social models as linear progressions and therefore seek to define the behavior of others in terms of our own way of thinking. The China Construct does not seem to fit this notion. Is the concept of a China Construct valid? What, if any, are its guiding principals and if it is not a linear progression how should the west view it?
Each paradigm shift displaces assumptions and creates new value systems. The post World War II ideologies’ desire to cast the world in terms of black and white, good and evil was not useful in a multiethnic, multicultural world whose physical boundaries and personal beliefs were drawn by and from past conquests and compromises as opposed to enlightenment and logic. What lessons does China draw from the post Cold War period and the Bush Bubble about the need for a multilateral system of values?
Multilateralism and unilateralism are often thought of as in conflict. China engages in both as a means of participating in world affairs, ensuring regional trade and cooperation and creating special trade relationships. Given that unilateralism will always be a factor as long as countries are in competition politically or economically, and that the existing multilateral bodies like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Court have been traditionally dominated by western interests, what is the future of China’s participation in these multilateral bodies? What are the logical implications of extending the pragmatic non interference policies to these bodies?
The dynamics of the triangular relationship between resources, production and markets looks like it will be the defining force which reshapes a more eastern-centered world. There will be inevitable friction as production shifts to areas which offer the most efficient combination of access to resources and markets and political and financial stability. This would seem to favor China but the economic displacement and competition for resources will create friction with other emerging and mature economies. What alternatives are open to Beijing in handling what will be an increasingly difficult task?
As the world has shifted from a single to multi-polar power structure. Chinese leaders have repeatedly indicated that its foreign policy model does not include imposed solutions or ideological approaches. This is a sharp contrast to the U.S. position which has seen its role as an evangelist of democratic capitalism. Many in the west believe there is a China agenda. How should the west think of China in terms of its global leadership role?
China has in the past chosen to put aside issues upon which it could not agree with others and deal with issues where progress could be achieved. As China builds and demonstrates its military and economic power will this approach continue?
The Communist Party has demonstrated a remarkable ability to use pragmatic policies to manage its economic and social issues. What is the balance point between economic gains fueled by pragmatic policies and the need for ideological goals and unity?
Beijing has been able to impose social conditions, like a one child policy, which were deemed necessary to its economic survival and expansion. Western democracies, while voicing concern and enacting green policies, have not been able to deal directly with the impact of a growing global population on resources, the environment, territorial disputes and sectarian strife. In case study terms Beijing’s power is a double-edged sword. Those countries which have systems that can use a strong centralized power to guide their countries towards a balanced and sustainable future will benefit. But the same rhetoric could be used by inexperienced or self-interested leaders as an excuse to maintain their power at the expense of the people they govern. Will Beijing try to offer guidance to other countries on the conditions necessary to justify the use of strong central power, and if so, will it be in terms of ideology, pragmatism and/or morality?
China’s leadership system relies on the guidance of the Communist Party but the mechanics of operating such a vast system must be like trying to steer an iceberg. Decisions need to be made so far in advance that it is difficult to predict their consequences. The party’s decision to train and elevate more economists, MBA’s and intellectuals to replace the engineers and party cadres, was made at a time when the priority was trying to develop an understanding of western financial and management systems. How will the party harness the energy and talents of this new generation of leaders, and how will the attitudes and experiences of this new genre of leaders change China?
After generations of deep personal sacrifice experienced at all levels of its society China has two generations from one child families born into times of rapid economic expansion. The views and experiences of these generations are radically different from their parents and grandparents. As these generations take their place in society how will they influence it, both as leaders and citizens?
What questions would you add?
