Archive for March 19th, 2010

Friday, March 19, 2010

Motherland, no Abstract Thing

Recent Chinese history has shown that only socialism can save China, and only socialism with Chinese characteristics can develop China. In socialist China, patriotism and socialism are naturally unified. Comrade Deng Xiaoping once said:

“There are people who say that not loving socialism doesn’t amount to not loving the motherland. How could the motherland an abstract thing? If they don’t love the New Socialist China under the leadership of the Communist Party, what do they love?”

Therefore, in contemporary China, under the leadership of the Communist Party, we must vigorously promote patriotism and unswervingly continue the road of socialism with Chinese characteristics, to fight for and to achieve the great revival of the Chinese nation.

近代以来的中国历史已经证明,只有社会主义才能救中国,只有中国特色社会主义才能发展中国。在社会主义中国,爱国主义与社会主义在本质上是统一的。邓小平同志曾经说过,

“有人说不爱社会主义不等于不爱国。难道祖国是抽象的吗?不爱共产党领导的社会主义新中国,爱什么呢?”

因此,在当代中国,大力弘扬爱国主义,就是要在中国共产党的领导下,坚定不移地走中国特色社会主义道路,为实现中华民族的伟大复兴而努力奋斗。

Wu Jun (吴俊), apparently a Xinhua / People’s Daily journalist, in February this year.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Don’t Hide, Don’t Challenge (yet)

After its rise, China “shouldn’t need to to hide its capacities (仍然需要韬光养晦) or to stay within a so-called framework, or fruitlessly hover between the two concepts” any more when handling contradictions with big Western powers, or in the construction of an international system, writes Liang Jiaqi (梁嘉芪), apparently an editor with Singapore’s Morning Post. Following America’s arms sales to Taiwan and Barack Obama‘s meeting with the Dalai Lama, China’s policies towards the U.S. had hardened, and at the same time, and as China had taken a high counter-profile at the Copenhagen Climate Summit, its currency’s exchange rate, the execution of Akmal Shaikh, etc.. This had lead to accusations of arrogance against China, and on the other hand, among the Chinese public, it had also been argued that China should still keep hiding its capacities.

But Western accusations stemmed from Western countries’ unbalanced state of mind (不平衡心态), argues Liang, due to slow growth there, to America’s debt-riddenness, to China’s rapid development, and its maintaining a moderate economic growth speed even during the financial crisis. Many people [the author apparently refers to Westerners] felt that America had to kowtow to China (美国也不得不向中国叩头了), that China no longer had to tolerate other peoples’ fault-findings, and that it was going to change the world according to its own interests and needs.

That America depended on China could be true, writes Liang, but China only saw one side of the issue. The mistake had been to excessively raise people’s expectations that China could stifle America’s arrogance. Although China had an important global position and the ability to help solving problems, power wasn’t the only factor in deciding a country’s role on the global stage. Before the system dominated by America or Europe would really change, before they would decline as military and technological centers, or before they would lose their monopoly on the discourse, would take much longer. The international system wasn’t only based on power, but also on values and historic perspectives of the big countries, and shaped by affinities to American hegemony. It wouldn’t serve China’s interests, nor its image, to stay away from all globally needed problem-solving.

Liang points out that China still depends more on America than vice versa (“only 7% of American debts are held by China”), and then comes back his Taiwan example. “The Taiwan Relations Act is not in China’s interest. But is it the right time now to force America to abandon this law which interferes with China’s internal affairs? Would Chinese military and commercial sanctions against the arms sales to Taiwan make America give in? This needed to be pragmatically (实事求是的) considered before going on the counter-attack.”

For the time being, Liang would recommend longer phases of severed military cooperation, and party and state chairman Hu Jintao‘s visit to the U.S. could also be temporarily cancelled.

Generally, the world’s second-largest economy couldn’t hide its capacities, but should be undogmatic, dealing with the situations as they were, writes Liang. The international situation, including China’s relations and disputes with neighboring countries, was too complicated for the formula made by Deng Xiaoping decades ago.

____________

Related
Hermit: India is an Unharmonious Serf, June 25, 2009

%d bloggers like this: