Transcription
This shows that Europeans still do not realize that the era in which European governments could judge other countries has ended.
I think it is important to distinguish between two different issues. The first is whether China will be peaceful. The second question is whether China will be benevolent. These are two completely different questions.
I believe the idea of a benevolent great power is inherently contradictory. There is fundamentally no such thing as a benevolent great power. All great powers, this has been the case for the past 2,000 years, will prioritize their own interests above those of other countries.
Therefore, when any small country deals with a great power, if the small country believes that the great power will sacrifice its own interests for the sake of the small country, that is too naive.
But the question of whether China will be peaceful is a completely different issue. The answer to this is actually found in the first few pages of Henry Kissinger's book on China. He begins the book with a lengthy discussion of Sun Tzu, the great Chinese strategist, who believed that the worst way to win a war is through fighting, and the best way is to win without fighting.
There is no doubt that China will seek to expand its influence both regionally and globally. However, the Chinese also believe that the most foolish thing is to imitate the United States by starting a new war every few years.
I must emphasize that this is what Kissinger says in his book. Kissinger states that the Chinese believe that continuously waging war is extremely foolish if one can achieve their goals without it.
And China has indeed become a great power. By the way, among the 193 countries in the world, the vast majority of countries in the Global South now accept that China is, more or less, an equal great power to the United States, and China has achieved this without fighting a single war. This is what is astonishing about China.
I have no doubt that China will try to expand its influence because that is what all great powers do. But they believe that achieving this through starting or participating in wars is foolish.
Don't you think that if China seeks to expand its influence in Southeast Asia, assert more rights in the South China Sea, and increase its influence in the Taiwan Strait, it could be a potential problem? Don't you think this is an attempt to turn the Asian century into the Chinese century?
I am glad you mentioned Southeast Asia because Southeast Asia has actually coexisted with China for 2,000 years. Among the ten countries in Southeast Asia, nine have an Indian cultural foundation. The influence of Indian culture on Southeast Asia is far greater than that of China.
Southeast Asia is accustomed to coexisting with many neighboring great powers. China's influence in Southeast Asia will inevitably grow; this is beyond doubt.
Let me give you a simple example. In 2000, the trade volume between ASEAN and China was only $40 billion. By 2022, it had reached $975 billion, close to $1 trillion. This is the largest trade relationship in the world.
With such a huge trade volume, China's influence will clearly increase. But at the same time, Southeast Asia is also very adept at hedging its bets. For example, U.S. investment in Southeast Asia has now surpassed its total investment in China, Japan, South Korea, and India combined.
This shows the geopolitical wisdom of Southeast Asian countries, which is completely underestimated by those simple-minded Westerners. They view the world in black and white and do not understand that in Asia, the rules of the game require a subtle balance.
Do not try to categorize people as either pro-China or anti-China, or pro-U.S. or anti-U.S. No, Southeast Asian countries will protect their own interests. They have accumulated wisdom over the years on how to handle their own interests.
For example, I believe that among all countries, Vietnam understands China the best. They have a 2,000-year history of interaction. By the way, Vietnam was occupied by China for a full 1,000 years.
There is a saying among the Vietnamese: to become a leader in Vietnam, you must be able to confront China and also be able to coexist with China. If you cannot do both, you cannot be a leader in Vietnam.
This is what Southeast Asian countries are doing. They will coexist with China, but sometimes they will quietly confront China if they believe their interests are at stake.
Of course, we do not have to do this publicly. We do not have to deliberately promote this. But in the end, you will see how much progress Southeast Asia has made.
Let me give you another astonishing statistic. In the decade from 2010 to 2020, the GDP of the ten ASEAN countries was one-fifth that of the EU. However, during that same decade, ASEAN contributed more to global economic growth than the EU.
Amazing things are happening in Asia, and the West has not noticed.
Let me simply ask, to make the discussion more lively, let me pose a second challenge to your position. This relates to China's internal policies. Some compare it to internal colonialism.
In your book on China, you say that China has never been expansionist, but this does not align with the historical facts for the people of Tibet, Xinjiang, and Mongolia. In this new memoir, you say that China is committing genocide in Xinjiang. This claim is factually incorrect.
From a semantic standpoint, you can indeed argue this, but you immediately turn to a comparative argument regarding the role of the U.S. in causing the Cambodian genocide. As a reader, I feel that you have not truly addressed those human rights allegations and criticisms of China’s human rights record, which are quite common in the West.
The term "crimes against humanity" is used by the United Nations to describe what is happening in Xinjiang, or to refer to the severe dissent against the Chinese Communist Party, whether in Hong Kong or on the mainland.
If you sometimes give me the impression that you are simply blaming these facts on the West's misunderstanding of China, how can we be convinced by your argument?
Well, when you mention the example of Tibet, all modern national borders are determined by the realities of the 20th century, and these borders, as you know, are accepted by the United Nations.
When the People's Republic of China became a member of the United Nations, no one questioned these borders. In fact, even when the Nationalist government represented China for many years, despite only controlling Taiwan, the map of China included Tibet.
If you want to say that Tibet should be returned to the Tibetans, then should you also say that Texas and California should be returned to the Mexicans?
We are not talking about sovereignty issues. No one questions that Hong Kong is part of China.
Not many people are questioning this. You know that there are people in the West who do so.
My question is about internal policies and criticisms of human rights violations. Yes, yes, what I want to say is that ultimately, China must decide what kind of political system it wants to adopt and find its own balance.
It is clear that the Chinese believe they are better off under strong central control, and China's history shows that when the central government becomes weak, the country will split, chaos will ensue, and many Chinese will die.
When the central authority is weak, more severe human rights violations occur. As you know, the Chinese have experienced this during the recent century of national humiliation, from 1842 to 1949.
And the Chinese also... I hope you can acknowledge that this is a fact. They found that when they were weak, they were trampled by Western powers.
At the end of the 20th century, the British and the French looted the Summer Palace like the Taliban. These are indelible historical facts.
When a Westerner comes to China and says, "Why not relax a bit? It's okay to allow dissent. A little chaos is fine. Don't worry, we won't take advantage of you," if China believes the West, that would be too foolish.
After what happened from 1842 to 1949, it is absolutely foolish. How could relaxing internal policies make them vulnerable to exploitation?
If chaos arises in China, if the central authority becomes weak again, the great powers will indeed take advantage of this division.
I think the key point is that the most important data that every Westerner should know is that the West only accounts for 12% of the world's population. In this small global village we live in, the remaining 88% is out there.
During the past 200 years of Western dominance in world history, other regions have been relatively passive. But now they are awakening.
These countries will find their own ways to adapt to the modern world, their own systems, and so on.
I believe that in Southeast Asia, we believe we cannot suggest to China what form of government is best for them. That is for them to decide.
But China also cannot tell us what form of government we should adopt. We choose our form of government, you choose your form of government, and then we coexist.
By the way, this is also true for India. India will also choose its own balance between freedom and authority in many of these areas.
All societies are striving to find the right balance. I believe that even in the West, there will be a shift from overly emphasizing individual freedom to emphasizing the need for state cohesion to some extent while also maintaining individual freedom.
But once again, every society must make its own decisions.
Of course, aside from the West, you will notice that most countries in the Global South do not go around lecturing other countries on what is good or bad for them.
Lecturing is certainly unhelpful, but we all certainly have the right to openly discuss these issues and criticize, just as we criticize our own governments.
Of course, as individuals, you can criticize, but I think it is unwise for European governments to lecture the Chinese government on what is good and what is bad.
This shows that Europeans have not yet realized that the era in which European governments could judge other countries has ended.
We are now experiencing a fundamental turning point in history.
European governments seem not to realize that the world will no longer accept lectures from European governments.
At this moment, they have even failed to prevent wars from breaking out on their own borders.
Ultimately, I think we should take this as a given: peace, such as peace in Asia, reflects geopolitical capability.
We find various ways to address issues to avoid war. War reflects geopolitical incompetence.
Europeans have created these wonderful institutions, such as the OSCE, yet they have been unable to prevent wars.
I think it is time for Westerners to show a certain degree of humility when engaging in dialogue with other parts of the world, rather than telling the rest of the world that we know better what is best for you.
Please do not do that anymore.