|
BEIJING—As one who has been coming to China for more
than 40 years, and who now spends most of his time here,
I cannot help but contrast, with dismay, what I see and
experience here with the negative image to which so many
in the West are exposed.
China
has been making progress in building a vibrant, modern
society but, inevitably, it still has to cope with
massive problems left by its turbulent past. Still, that
progress is clearly remarkable by any standard. China
has raised more people out of poverty than any nation
has ever done.
The
constraints that the Chinese and foreigners living here
continue to experience are minimal and, for the most
part, understandable, given that no nation has suffered
from societal breakdown, internal conflict and foreign
intervention more than China has in the past century.
It is a
small wonder that the Chinese place such emphasis on the
need for internal stability and security. Indeed, we
must realize that even in our own societies the
standards we exhort China to adopt are those we have
only recently, and not yet fully, lived up to ourselves.
The Chinese will be much more influenced by our example
than by the uninformed and hypocritical content of so
much of our criticism.
Hostile
attitudes and policies aimed at undermining China’s
progress and discrediting its policies and intentions
can only be counterproductive, and contrary to our own
interests. For there is not a single major world issue
that can be resolved without China’s cooperation. It is
not that we should forgo legitimate and constructive
criticisms and differences, but that these be resolved
by engagement with China as a full partner, rather than
by the kind of entrenched hostility and bias we so often
display.
Climate
change is an issue that is especially relevant. China
realizes that it will be one of the most vulnerable
victims of climate change and is already taking serious
measures domestically to avert these risks. But it
cannot be expected to transform these into binding
commitments that are not matched by firm and enforceable
commitments by the countries, notably the United States,
whose accumulated emissions of greenhouse gases have
caused the irreversible damage already inflicted on the
world.
The
attempt to shift the onus for climate change to China,
India and other rapidly industrializing developing
countries is neither fair nor workable.
Similarly, the attempt to shift the onus for increases
in food, oil and commodity prices to China, as well as
India and others now competing for these imports, will
be counterproductive. The needs of the poor and the
newly developing countries cannot be subordinated to the
wasteful and indulgent appetites of the rich and their
preemption of a disproportion of the world’s resources.
Cooperation and cooperative engagement, on a scale that
is without precedent, are the only ways of resolving
these matters, rather than allowing them to escalate
into a new generation of conflict—a very real
possibility. China’s role will be indispensable. It will
be a willing and constructive participant in this
process, but not a subservient one.
China’s
commitment to internal security and stability and to
regional and world peace must also be taken seriously.
Unlike Japan, which has invaded and sought to dominate
each of its neighbors, ceasing only when it was defeated
in the Second World War, China’s territorial disputes
with its neighbors have been confined to differences
over their boundaries rather than attempts to occupy or
annex them. It gives its own minorities a high degree of
autonomy, including special rights such as exemption
from the one-child policy, while rigorously resisting
separatist tendencies, as most countries do.
Disturbances in Tibet were led by monks whose
traditional privileges and control over the majority of
the population have been severely curtailed, while the
majority who live in poverty and serfdom are
experiencing new opportunities as a result of the
modernization of the Tibetan economy.
To be
sure, this process has been a difficult and even painful
one for many, but both Chinese and Tibetans continue to
learn and to accommodate the changes that will enable
Tibet to retain its distinctive cultural and religious
heritage while according its people new and growing
opportunities for a better life. Even the Dalai Lama
does not advocate or expect the independence of Tibet
from China, and his differences are related to the
degree and nature of the autonomy Tibet could be given
within China.
The
alternative, in all these issues and others, is an
ominous and growing potential for conflict, at a time
when what the world needs is a new and immensely
increased degree of cooperation. This must be focused
principally on those issues that affect the very
survival of humankind and must transcend the narrower
and self-serving interests of individual nations.
Uninformed and ideologically biased critics of China
should ask themselves why it is that the majority of
Chinese today are better off and better satisfied than
ever, why more overseas Chinese are returning to China
and why more foreigners are enjoying conditions of life
here that make them want to stay, even if it involves
changing their employment to do so.
Maurice Strong is former secretary- general of the 1972
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and
the first executive director of the United Nations
Environment Program. (http://www.mauricestrong.net). |
