Transcription
Hello. It gives me great pleasure to welcome you back to this fascinating series of conversations that we are having with Professor uh Wang Gungwu.
Uh, now we're going to discuss the topics that we have covered in week three on what are the sort of contemporary areas of misunderstanding uh between the United States uh and China. And I'm going to begin, Gungwu, by addressing the whole uh claim by the United States, many in the United States, that China is a threat to the world because when China becomes powerful, it will inevitably become militaristic, aggressive, conquer territories, and subjugate weaker nations just as the Western imperialist powers did when they became powerful. So, when the when the when these Western figures claim that China is inherently expansionist in a militaristic sense, how do you answer them? What does the history of Chinese civilization tell us about China's behavior in the military dimension?
>> I don't think there's any doubt that the Chinese had an expansionist phase 2,000 years ago. When China was unified, uh Qin Shi Huang and then followed after that the Han emperors did try to expand the territories that they could control from what what the Yellow River area down to the south, as well as uh uh across the into the steppes. But after that, they never really did because what happened after that was the people of the steppes, the nomadic peoples and tribes, uh became much, much more powerful. And they were much more aggressive.
>> Mhm.
>> I mean all the way these are the ancestors of the Mongols and Turks that we have today. And the Manchus, the ancestors were under different names were having confederations of nomadic tribes who were on horseback were very powerful. And their their horseback was like the like the tanks of today.
>> tanks of today, yes.
>> And they just continually threatened China.
>> Mhm.
>> And the China that we we mean by China the Chinese of the Han people
>> Mhm.
>> were basically on the defensive most of the time.
>> Mhm.
>> If they tried to push back every now and then to to keep them far away. But on the whole they lost. And from the end of the Han Dynasty onwards from about the 4th century onwards uh there have been invasions one after the other
>> Mhm.
>> of the ancestors of the Turco-Mongol people. And including Tibetans at that time Tibetans were very aggressive people. Uh all the way until the Tang Dynasty was actually founded by the descendants of all these invaders.
>> Mhm.
>> The Tang Dynasty is not a Han purely Han. It was a mixture.
>> Mhm.
>> And they con- they conquered North China.
>> Mhm.
>> And from North China they later conquered South China and unified China. And then the Song was more the Han Chinese but they were more culturally engaged and militarily very weak.
>> Mhm.
>> They were all the time defending themselves against the Jurchens, the Khitans, the Mongols and finally got conquered by the Mongols.
>> Mhm.
>> Again the pressure was from the north. Uh from these were nomadic tribes. And when the Ming Dynasty succeeded in driving the Mongols out, all they did was to push the Mongols outside of what was traditionally the where the agrarian Han people lived. They didn't expand at all. They just managed to push the Mongols out.
>> Mhm.
>> And the Mongols stayed there until this day.
>> Mhm.
>> And then came the Manchus from the slightly different direction in partnership with the Mongols.
>> Mhm.
>> Conquered the Ming Dynasty, took over the whole thing. Then just like the Mongols did, took over the whole of China. So, depends on what you mean by China. You see, if you if you look at the China and we normally talk of China as the China of the Han Chinese. Then the record of the Han Chinese expanding is negligible, nothing. Since the Han Dynasty. But other people expanding into China hundreds of years of of that, again and again and again. And several times totally successful, took over the whole of China.
>> Yes.
>> And the Han Chinese were actually ruled by non-Chinese, especially the northern part of China, ruled by non-Chinese for more than half the time of the one last thousand years, were under foreign rule. So, depends on what you look at it. But if you take the whole of China today, what has happened is that we now include Manchuria, Mongolia, Uyghurs, the Turks and the Xinjiang. And of course, you you then say that is Chinese expansion. But actually it wasn't, it was their expansion into China. And now because the Qing Dynasty was recognized as pa- having passed their their mandate of heaven to the Republic of China, the Republic of China's map
>> Yes.
>> was exactly that of the Qing Qing China. So, then now, the Han Chinese says that's China.
>> Yeah.
>> So, we are responsible for it, we are a sovereign state, we're responsible for it, and that's China. And people now look to at China that way.
>> Yes.
>> Then but if you include then for the expansionist claims of the Manchus, Mongols, and the Turks and so on, then you of course you can say China was also expansionist. But they were not of the Han people.
>> Yes.
>> So, if you it depends how you analyze it.
>> Yeah.
>> So, so that is why some of the studies are bit contradictory.
>> Yeah.
>> They they some people say, "Oh, the Chinese are not expansionist." But this is because they're talking mainly of the the Han part of the Chinese after the Han Dynasty.
>> Yes.
>> others are talking of China, then you say well then you look at those guys they were moving and they took over all these territories which are now Manchuria, Mongolia and and so on. So, it depends on how you understand it.
>> I must say you've explained it very well and it's it's very clear that large part of the expansions especially uh west were undertaken when China was ruled actually by as you say by the foreign invaders. And so, that's an important point of history that I think many people should know. But I'm going to move forward today to another another area of misunderstanding between the United States and China. And many Americans including as recently as the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said that the problem with China is that it's ruled by the Chinese Communist Party and he emphasizes the word Communist. And by definition a Communist Party is totalitarian and rules over its people by sheer force. And Mike Pompeo says, "Oh, we're not opposed to the Chinese people. We are only opposed to the Chinese Communist Party. And if you can remove the Chinese Communist Party, everything will be fine." So, how how do you explain to I guess an American audience that in many ways the Chinese Communist Party enjoys a lot of support and legitimacy from its own people? And how does how does how does one persuade a a very skeptical audience that that that there's that the Chinese people don't feel that they're being ruled by a sort of dark, oppressive, totalitarian force in the way that Americans believe that they are being ruled by?
>> I think for most Chinese people the 1949 victory of the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong was a was a blessing. It unified the country, ended all the years of civil war, invasions, and so on. And therefore the Chinese people who actually as this Mao Zedong said will stand up for themselves. And they look upon that as a great turning point. And it was done by the Chinese Communist Party. So, the Chinese Communist Party is a legitimate ruler of China having won on the battlefield and provided the Chinese with the unification that most Chinese people desperately wanted. So, from that point of view, the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party is not in question. The name, however, is something that derived from the days when they started under the Comintern with backing of the Soviet Union in 1921. And they've been depending on support from the Soviet Union and Communist countries in general for first 40 30 40 years until the 19 until they were unified. And then after that they could gradually move away from the Soviet orbit to to determine their own fate. That process brought it very very clear that the Chinese are primarily interested in the Chinese nation. The How do you build this nation? Because they never had nationalism before. The idea of a nation is a very modern one. They now were trying to build a nation out of 50 recognized 56 major minorities uh major uh nationalities in the country. It's a multinational state. How to make this multinational state into a sense a nationhood as China? As the People's Republic of China. That is their major concern. So, it is a nation-building part of making China rich, prosperous, powerful, influential. Of course, all those things are part and parcel of the nationalism. That has been obsessive to the Chinese. But what's communist about it? It's very hard to say that uh there are any serious communists in China today. I mean, the success of the reforms after Deng Xiaoping has been very much based on the utilization of the best practices of modern capitalism and the free market economy under globalization conditions, global conditions which which favored that. And they've taken advantage of that and they've built a a new completely new kind of state capitalism which is ne- aimed at strengthening and saving making safe China. The national multi-nation state of China. That is their primary primary concern. The fact that it was started as a communist party they cannot help. That's the That is the legitimacy that that party won in 1949. But you can see almost from the beginning they rejected what the what what came out of the Soviet Union. Very quickly they started to dis- disagree because their focus was on And the Russians, even Stalin, were always afraid of that. That it would be worse than Tito would be. Tito is already bad enough, but Tito was small. This this country is very very large. If Mao Zedong is allowed to have his way, they'll threaten the Soviet Union. And Stalin was always very worried about it, watching them very carefully. So, there was always a suspicion that these people are not really communist. And in fact, the communist parties of Europe regard the Chinese as not communist at all. Because they have they have really much more nationalistic and concerned for their own own their self-respect and and respect of and so on.
>> [snorts]
>> So, the name is there, but I think to say that the Chinese are communist I think is a is a total misunderstanding. In fact, if you look at what the Chinese are doing today, I think they make very good capitalists. And they've been successful. And I think that's what more worrying to the some of the capitalists in the in the West is to find these Chinese are pretty good at it and beating them at their own game.
>> Yes. I think if if if Stalin and Lenin could become alive and visit China, they'd be very puzzled that China's
>> [snorts]
>> party is called the Chinese Communist Party, right? They would say, "What What's communist about this?"
>> Uh because they're more purist, and I I met communists in Europe who absolutely shake their heads when they talk about the Chinese. How can they be communist? They're not They've betrayed communism.
>> Yes. Well, that that's a very important contribution. At the same time, on the other side of the coin, as you know, uh several former American officials, including two who served in the Obama administration, Kurt Campbell and Elyse Ratner, actually published an article in the magazine Foreign Affairs. And I'm glad they did so, because they were very honest. They said that uh what America expec- expected was that as America engaged China, China would open up economically, and after China opened up economically, China would open up politically, and after China opened up politically, it would become a liberal democracy like, you know, the United States of America. But of course, that hasn't happened. And especially when Xi Jinping removed the term limits, they said, "Hey, China's moving away from democracy." So, how how would you uh tell uh American officials that in some ways it was rather unrealistic for them to expect uh that China would naturally evolve and become a sort of a liberal democracy like the United States with competing political parties. What was that supposed to be the inevitable [snorts] natural destination for China?
>> It's very difficult to explain in terms which the American political culture would understand and ex- expect. I would say it stems from the fact that Americans, unlike some Europeans, don't really have a strong sense of history, because their own history really began with the revolution in the 18th century. And their history as a world rejected the Europe in their eyes and started a completely new vision of of a new kind of country, an exceptional country which had a mission coming from these people who took the best out of Europe but rejected all the terrible things that Europe stood for and ended up with two world wars and so. They will They will be different. They create a new kind of world. And they can they can you can reject the past totally. And when they Mao Zedong and his generation rejected the past and they really young whole generation of May 4th rejected the Confucian past, they expected the Chinese also to go through the same sort of rejection of the past and starting afresh just like the Americans did. But that's not the quite the case because in the case of China the Chinese never really forgot their past. Their Their sense of the past is so deeply rooted in their culture in almost everything that they think about or say or feel is rooted in things that derive from 2,000, 3,000 years ago of history. So not only history but the traditional values, the moral systems, the family system, the whole social network system that they inherited is so deeply part and parcel of how the Chinese people see themselves and how they live actually. Um if you don't if you don't have that you can probably say, well, we'll we'll do what the Americans do and they probably could have done it. But in deep down the Chinese couldn't do that. They They believe that all that in the past actually is pretty good for them. They were They were very valuable for Chinese. They're still valuable. They are things that we They are They are mistakes made. There was some terrible corruption and and and complacency and they lost out. But on fundamentally there were some good things that the Chinese heritage should still remain with us. We should be still be proud of it.
>> Which Which are the values of that heritage that you say that they are very proud of and want to preserve?
>> Well, the the whole value system actually builds on three sets of things. Number one, the Confucian legalist one which set up the state.
>> Mhm.
>> A state which
>> So, a strong state is very important for China.
>> Yes. That was started by the It was done by the legalists, but actually was supported by the Confucians.
>> Confucians, yes.
>> The Confucians actually provided, as it were, uh softened the image and made it better, make it function better, more successful. So, that created the state. And then there is the Taoism that allowed for the individual development of your personal ID, how you live, how each individual lives his life and so on. And then you have the Buddhist element which came from India, but which they transformed into something Chinese and made it into very Chinese acceptance that there's also you have to prepare for the afterlife and you have to think about all the the deeds that you do today so that you will not be punished in the afterlife. All these things were brought together into one whole. And over a thousand years they've been integrated into one system. So, it's not only one. I would combine the three as the fundamental belief systems of the Chinese. It's not a religion. It's a mixture of black practices and ideals which have made them feel they recognize they identify themselves as Chinese. And this, of course, makes them feel that that's what they're Chinese, what it it means to be a Chinese. This you cannot abandon. And to be democratic and free and so on, yes, they are good things to have if we can achieve them, but you cannot not at the expense of all the things that make us Chinese. And I think somewhere along the line they recognize that they the strong state for an country like that which never had any kind of ideas of local government and small small city-state traditions. And none of those experiences the Chinese had, but always under a strong central government, which while it did not interfere with the ordinary people's lives normally, nevertheless provided them with security, safety, they defended the frontiers, it at least and it taxed them very low and they didn't have the taxes were never heavy. And there was always a degree of caring to make sure the distribution of wealth is not too disparate and so on. There was sort of sense of welfare that the emperor cared for the people. That it may be missed a rhetoric, but nevertheless the people basically enjoyed it. There were bad emperors, but so they deserved to be thrown out. A new dynasty comes in and they start again. But the idea that the strong state can care for the people. It's a bad state that doesn't care. But if you have a good state that's actually should be fine. Served by very loyal mandarins who are chosen for their capacity, competence and genuine devotion and loyalty to the service. That should be fine. As long as they're good. If they're corrupt, throw them out. Bring in the new lord. So you can say that the a revolution of a rebellion at the end of a dynasty is their democratic process. You you the people have showed we disagree with you, we chuck you out, we bring in a new lord. But they do it violently and we thought of death. A lot of Chinese people will regret that. They they do admire the system whereby you change your rulers without that killing anybody. And I think that would be ideal. But they look at China and they can't see the Chinese operating quite that way. And the the few attempts they made were actually not serious attempts. Didn't work anyway. And what has worked is a strong state again when the after 1949. Like it or not, this state has done as much as they could in the name of the people.
>> Yeah.
>> And well, there was there are skeptics and the people who are dissenters, but the majority of the people feel that they have benefited from a strong state who devoted to bringing social harmony and trying to make sure that there's not too much inequality, and generally a degree of of sharing around the place. So, that I think is makes it very difficult for them to accept
>> Yes.
>> the the American ideal.
>> Yeah. I think I think you've put across a very, very important point that in some ways actually has been, as you know, the strong support of the Chinese people for the government today has actually been confirmed recently by a Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center study which showed how support for the Chinese government has actually gone up over the past decade because the people feel that the government is actually is delivering a better life for its citizens. So, on that note, we will conclude our discussions for week three of our course, and I'm looking forward very much to our discussions for week four, which as you know is the final week of the course. Thank you very much, Kangkang.