By Huang Ping
BEIJING, Nov. 6 (Xinhuanet) -- “The ‘national comprehensive strength,’ a concept mentioned by Deng Xiaoping, is not equivalent to GDP. I am trying to link education, science and technology, economy and military together and see them in a relation of four-in-one interactions (when we measure the powers of nations),” said Huang Ping, the director of the Institute of American Studies (an institute of CASS) on the Western Returned Scholars Association (WRSA) Beijing Forum, which was held on Sept. 2, 2012. WRSA is an association of Chinese scholars having the experience of studying in Europe and US. The full text of his speech is as follows:
Firstly, I express my congratulations to the Western Returned Scholars Association for its publication of Bluebook of Chinese Talent Studying Overseas today. Our institute and the American Studies Society also had a study of the Chinese talent studying in America. Just now, both Ambassador Wu and Mr. Chen stressed we should see the changes in the world in a rational way. In the recent books and two ones we edited last year, I made bold to write two essays. Last year, I wrote about the change of America's national comprehensive strength in the recent decade. This year, I did about how the United States has been maintaining its hegemony in the world in the past two decades after the end of the Cold War. My first essay was written based on the concept of “national comprehensive strength,” which was proposed by Comrade Deng Xiaoping, instead of only on one indicator, such as GDP. When I analyze the changes in the past two decades this year, I am trying to measure the powers of nations by linking together education, science and technology, economy and military, which were mentioned by Mr. Chen, and I see the four in “the relation of four-in-one interactions.” Whether a nation wants to maintain its status or its advantages, (it has to rely on the four). Today, the issue President Wang (president of WRSA) presented for our studies is a big one. I'll say a few words about a topic in the issue, i.e., the new challenges China is now facing in the new world situation. Among them, there is the challenge how China should create its international image, which is related to the “China’s Dream”. Ambassador Wu has mentioned quite a lot, he is so profound both in research and practice. The last topic is our strategic thinking about China in the developments around the world. It is a tough topic, too, but I'll also talk a little about it, to see whether I could spur a discussion.
When we think about our challenges “in the coming future”, I think “in the coming future” should be the coming decade or the coming three decades. I think 1919-49 is the first three decades (for China’s rise), and 1949-79 the second. And we have just passed the third. So what (challenges) we would face from now on? First, there are very hard constraints. Our country's sustainable development faces very hard constraints in resources, energy, environment, ecology, including water and arable land. The difficulties for us to promote the developments in these areas become more and more. On the other hand, the resources are becoming increasingly scarce and expensive. We may even have to be in disputes with neighbors for them, and the results of unhappiness. The other end (of the scale for measuring the powers of nations) is soft. We are now talking about the “soft power”, and how to realize the “China’s Dream” through creation of good image. That is, in a “soft” perspective, what kind of values, concepts, targets, now called the “vision”, can China provide to share with all humans? This is not a simple repeat of others’ dreams. But it seems that we are dreaming the same dream as the Americans. So we should think what we can offer to the world. I think it is related not only with our image in the mind of the outside world, but also with the nation’s image in the mind of our own folks. The image should be admired from the heart or arouse admiration. I think it is a challenge (for China) how to shape its soft power. Between hard and soft, there is what Mr. Chen called “institutional construction”. People talk a lot about it, and there are a lot of media reports and criticisms of the “institutional construction,” such as the reforms of medical care, nursing the aged, education, even transportation, security, management, administration of justice, audit, taxation, etc., which I think need our joint research. We should construct our own systems well and improve them by taking the step by step approach in view of China’s characteristics and Chinese history.
Secondly, strategic issues are difficult to talk about, but I think it is now possible for us to imagine a few possibilities? A senior scholar of international studies said that China has its strategy, which began from Chairman Mao, running through to the current strategy, and has been very successful. There are some strategic issues on which renowned American scholars never discuss. They only talked about very specific things. Back to our studies, China also has scholars asking: whether we could “cross the river while feeling the stones’’ by trying an empty strategy or a wrong strategy? I think the international situation is different from the one in our country in 1978, when people were talking about whether we should divide land among peasants in the countryside, and whether we should start reform in the cities. Comrade Deng Xiaoping was very confident at that time. He said that we could take it back if it's wrong, but we must act with brevity. (However, we cannot try it this way in international strategy.) Therefore, over the next ten to thirty years, one of the easiest practices in strategy is to maintain the status quo in the world. It is very difficult to maintain the status quo. We maintained a basically stable international situation in the past thirty years. In general, we've created a very good international environment for us. But its maintenance now seems a struggle to cope with. Now we raise the slogans of being big, being fast and talk about our size and influence, but where do we rank the management of the status quo? I think it's too early to rank China as the second power in the world. We only have one indicator just over Japan, even if our size, speed and influence are there.
Thirdly, how to shape a new type of relations among powers? The relations include peace, cooperation, mutual benefit and common sharing at economic and trade levels, and also on the level of ideology and value. It is a real challenge for us to create a new, harmonious, and peacefully cooperative type of relations among powers through communication, dialogue and cooperation.
(Source: cssn.cn)
|
