If the U.S. policy towards China is not as an enemy, then it should "walk the walk" as opposed to "talk the talk," said Wu Xinbo, professor and dean of the Institute of International Studies at China's Fudan University.
by Lawrence Freeman
After attending three days of discussion at the 11th Beijing Xiangshan Forum from Sept. 12 to 14, and spending over a week in China, it is apparent to me that neither the people of China nor the government desire confrontation with the United States. However, it is also evident that China has no intention of submitting to the doctrine of the West's so-called rules-based order, with its demented zero-sum game doctrine.
As someone who has attended hundreds of conferences in Washington D.C. over many years, this gathering in Beijing was unique. It was comprised of a diverse and inclusive list of speakers from all over the world, with a sizable number of Americans participating. There was a refreshing open exchange of ideas with opposing points of view expressed.
The three most important and prominent themes of the conference were China-U.S. relations, China and the Global South's commitment to development, and China's challenge to Western domination through its "rules-based international order."
CHINA: ENEMY OR COMPETITOR OF U.S.?
In the first session on China-U.S. relations, Rick Waters, a former senior China policy official at the U.S. State Department, espoused the position of the United States towards China as one of competition, and not always a zero-sum game.
Although he repeatedly professed that he was not speaking for the Biden administration, Waters was the top American diplomat (former) at the conference and thoroughly knowledgeable about U.S. policy towards China and the Taiwan question. Waters attempted to present a more reasonable view of the U.S. attitude towards China than what one hears from President Biden and the State Department on a weekly basis.
Wu Xinbo, professor and dean of the Institute of International Studies at China's Fudan University, articulated Chinese foreign policy in his exchange with Waters.
Wu pointed out that the U.S. policy towards China is more than so-called competition, but rather one of rivalry, with the U.S. treating China as an adversary. He said if the U.S. policy towards China is not as an enemy, then it should "walk the walk" as opposed to "talk the talk."
Wu also accused the United States of being less sympathetic to China's goal of reunification, and said the United States uses the Taiwan question to contain China.
As one who closely follows Washington's strategy toward China, it is more than obvious that the United States does indeed see China as an enemy, a threat to the trans-Atlantic political and military establishment. This hostile anti-China attitude is expressed by leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties, and the majority of the Congress. One can find, on almost any given week, a seminar in Washington D.C., or a written commentary, by one think-tank or another, predicting when and how China's mainland will attack Taiwan, and suggested military countermeasures the United States should take, even preemptively. The primary justification for the gargantuan U.S. defense budget of almost one trillion U.S. dollars is to contain China's influence in the Asia-Pacific theater.
DISEASE OF "ZERO-SUM" MINDSET
The real grievance the United States (and the West) has with China is its insistence on charting its own independent course of development for its people, not willing to be subservient to Western domination. China, correctly, does not accept the precepts of the so-called rules-based international order. Waters let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, when he explicitly accused China of trying to change the rules of the West's rules-based order. To that extent he is correct. China's actions have produced rage in the Western establishment for its refusal to submit to their ideologically driven system.
Is it a crime for China to want to change the axioms of a structure created by the West, which is based on a false understanding of reality?
The following few paragraphs briefly explain the inherently flawed axioms embedded in their rules-based order.
The first thing to understand is that our universe and us humans in it are not guided by rules, but rather, our ability to comprehend and act on the principles that govern our existence.
The most critically flawed axiom in the world view of those supporting the rules-based order geopolitical structure is its fictitious view of a fixed universe. In their imagined world, the zero-sum mentality decrees that there are only winners or losers, victors or victims. This notion of "zero-sum" stipulates that action must be taken to suppress China's development, because it is perceived wrongly as a threatening hegemon to their existing rules-based order.
This warped outlook has three perilous epistemological defects. One, the actual physical universe in which the human race dwells is not static. We do not exist in an unchanging world, where each nation is dependent for survival on acquiring a fixed, limited category of so-called natural resources. Our universe is constantly advancing to higher levels of development. Two, all human beings are born with the potential for creativity, irrespective of nationality or ethnicity. We humans are uniquely endowed with the power to hypothesize previously unknown principles embedded in the universe. From this power of creative reason, not logic, these discoveries allow civilization to overcome any constraints. It is this inborn potential of creative mentation, which each of us possesses, that makes us exclusively human. Three, the physical universe is structured to respond fruitfully to human creative intervention. If we comprehend these three principles, we know unequivocally that there are no limits to the continuous advancement of our planet. There are no limits to growth.
All nations have the same common interest: satisfying the material needs of their citizens and nurturing their creativity. Thus, the anti-human, zero-sum game outlook should be abolished and replaced with the concept that humankind can act cooperatively for the benefit of every nation and its people. This principle should form the cornerstone of all foreign policy.
GLOBAL SOUTH DEMANDS DEVELOPMENT
China's leadership in the emerging Global South, which has led to an irreversible multipolar world, has caused consternation in the West, even as they publicly dismiss it.
In his keynote speech delivered at the opening ceremony of the 11th Beijing Xiangshan Forum, China's Minister of National Defense Dong Jun called on members of the international society to show mutual respect, treat each other with sincerity, and seek common grounds while reserving differences.
In the meantime, they should be open and inclusive, engage in win-win cooperation that benefits all parties, and work together to achieve lasting peaceful coexistence, Dong said.
He also called for joint efforts to promote a multipolar world featuring equality and order.
This view was echoed by several speakers in the four plenary sessions of the forum.
Cameroon's Defense Minister Joseph Beti Assomo called for a new just equitable world economic system. He said in a separate interview with China Central Television (CCTV): "You have a Global South, it means we also have a Global North. So, if we can work hand-in-hand for all humanity so that those who have power, economic, political, or diplomatic power, can work hand-in-hand with those who are not developed or who are poor, so that there could be human solidarity. We have that dream, and we are doing that with China."
The defense minister of the Republic of the Congo, Charles Richard Mondjo, was emphatic about the need for economic development when he told the conference that if there is no peace, there is no development. He said the Global South is not industrialized, its economies are based on agriculture and mining. There is inequality between the North and the South; the North should reduce these inequalities. Any effort to support the Global South is an effort to support peace.
Sri Lanka's Secretary of Defense Kamal Gunaratne discussed the need for a new economic order and reforming the current economic system to shape a more peaceful world.
IGNORING CHINA'S TRANSFORMATION
As China celebrated on Tuesday its 75th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, China's accomplishments over three quarters of a century are quite remarkable.
The achievements over the last four decades, from the beginning of Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms in his "opening up" of China in 1978, are astonishing. The World Bank reports that China has lifted 770 million Chinese from poverty, with poverty defined as 2.15 dollars in income per day. This represents three quarters of the world's reduction in poverty and is more than the 450 million Africans still living in poverty today.
Examining China's demographic trend also reveals its successful transformation of economic conditions for its people. In 1960, average life expectancy in China was thirty-three years; in 1978 it almost doubled to sixty-three years. Today, average life expectancy in China is seventy-eight years, comparable to U.S. levels.
Infrastructure, which drives economic growth and productivity, has been an essential component of China's incredible transformation. During my stay in China, I chose to travel on their High Speed Rail (HSR) from Beijing to Shanghai/Pudong, rather than flying. It was a delightful journey. The HSR travelled at 215 miles per hour (346 km per hour) and covered the distance of 819 miles (1,318 km) in 4 hours and 37 minutes, on a smooth ride that arrived on time. Currently, China has 46,000 km of HSR, out of a total of 160,000 km of rail. HSR represents almost thirty percent of China's total rail system. The United States has no comparable rail system. Amtrak's Acela train is the most advanced, but only travels a maximum speed of 150 miles per hour (241 km per hour) and only 49 miles of track can manage Acela at its maximum speed. The total rail network in the United States is 160,000 miles (roughly 260,000 km).
Think of the savings in time and increase in productivity if Americans could travel at the HSR speed of 215 mile per hour. For comparison, today, traveling to Chicago from Washington D.C., a distance of 593 miles (954 km) by train will take almost 18 hours.
Yes, China has a different political, economic, and social system compared to the United States. Would it not be wise to investigate how China achieved all these economic successes? Might it not be possible to learn from China? Cannot the U.S. and China embark on a joint mission to eliminate poverty throughout the world, in service of the shared-common aims of humankind? I made this proposal in my presentation at the Beijing Xiangshan Forum.
Editor's note: Lawrence Freeman is a U.S. political-economic analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for 35 years.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Xinhua News Agency.■
