China Eye January 2014 Issue 5 by China Energy Fund Committee

China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC) is a nongovernmental, nonpartisan Chinese think-tank registered in Hong Kong. It has Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UN ECOSOC). With partners and associates in China and overseas, CEFC conducts research and related activities focusing on transnational topics such as energy security, issues relating to Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s emerging place in the world, and Chinese culture and thought. CEFC is dedicated to promoting international dialogue and understanding via offices throughout China and the United States.

China Energy Fund Committee 34/F, Convention Plaza Office Tower, 1 Harbour Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong, China Tel: (852) 2655 1666 Fax: (852) 2655 1616 E-mail: com@chinaenergyfund.org www.chinaenergyfund.org

CHINA EYEâ&#x20AC;§Issue5 January 2014

Editorial Board Chairman: YE Jianming (葉簡明) Vice Chairman: CHAN Chau To (陳秋途) Editor-in-Chief: HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平) Deputy Editor: LO Cheung On (路祥安) Executive Editor: LIU Yadong (劉亞東) Editor-in-Chief HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平) Deputy Editor LO Cheung On (路祥安) Executive Editors LIU Yadong (劉亞東) ZHANG Ya (張雅) Editorial Assistants CHOW Siu Tong (周肇堂) LEE Yim, Jeremy (李炘) WONG Hung Lik (王虹力) LEE Ching Hang (李政恆) LEE Shing (李盛) WANG Dingli (王鼎立) --------------------------------Published by China Energy Fund Committee 34/F, Convention Plaza Office Tower, 1 Harbour Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong Visit our website at www.chinaenergyfund.org --------------------------------For enquiries of distribution in the United States, Please contact CEFC U.S. Office 25/F, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209, U.S. --------------------------------Editor’s Note The authors whose original contributions were written in Chinese have given their permission for the articles to be translated into English, although not necessarily having vetted the English translation. -------------------------------All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the written permission of the publisher.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Editor’ s Notes

Knock, Knock, Knock As far as I know, today, we made history! This could be the first time that a non-governmental organization from China has ever undertaken on its own initiative, an in-depth cultural dialogue in Washington, the capital of the United States; and also the first time that a Chinese think-tank has ever conducted an open dialogue in the Carnegie Library, a prominent historic-cultural landmark in the heart of Washington; and perhaps also the very first time that such a formidable team of academic intellectuals from China has ever engaged their counterparts in a meaningful dialogue on the issue of core values on American ground. We believe that continuous open dialogue is the mainstay of modern public diplomacy. With deeper understanding of each other’s core values, cultural traditions as well as historical backgrounds, undue apprehension and anxiety could be allayed. Political mutual trust could only be made possible when misinterpretation, miscalculation and misjudgment stemming from suspicion, erroneous assumption, and misreading of intention were eliminated. The issue of core values is always at the heart of any in-depth cultural dialogue. Core values dictate the meaning of life and the purpose of living. Core values govern our thinking process and are translated as our action and behavior. They define what is good, what is bad, what happiness means, what is beauty, what counts as success, who are heroes. Core values define the choices we make. Why do we prefer hamburgers to Chinese dumplings(xiaolongbao)? Why do we watch Mickey Mouse cartoons instead of Monkey King(Sunwukong)? Each of our communities is driven by a collective system of values and a set of moral codes that govern thoughts, establish identity, drive economies, set agendas, dictate choices, and inspire expectations. Most importantly, it underpins how our respective communities of citizens prefer one form of political or economic system over another form, one type of social structure over another type, or choose certain categories of people as our leaders, or believing in news reports expounding a particular direction of story line. These are the values that motivate our communities in the consideration of what make them harmonious and what can result in a sense of well being and national pride. Simply put, discussions on politics are a debate of values, cultural values. These values are time-tested and evolve through incessant modifications and re-qualifications. They underpin our historical legacy and cultural background, and define who we are. Exchanges between Chinese and Western Cultures and Chinese Core Values In the last 5,000 years, the Chinese has recorded at least four periods of prosperity. The first in the Zhou Dynasty (BC 1042-996) in which the Chinese feudal system of administration was introduced. The second in the Han Dynasty (BC 180-141) when Emperors governed with noninterference, farming, peaceful development , and were not only able to repel the invasions of the Mongols from the north, but were able to dispatch envoys to forge the first contacts with the West, and opened up the Silk Road for trade. The third was in the Tang Dynasty (AD 627-649) when China’s GDP was about one third of the world’s, and students came from Japan and neighboring

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

countries to study in China. The fourth rise of China occurred in the Ming Dynasty (AD 14031435) when Admiral Zheng He and his powerful fleets were sent to sail from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean, to Africa and, arguably, even to America, some 71 years before Columbus. The Chinese people are a peace loving people. Whereas Julius Caesar said “I came, I saw, I conquered”, the Chinese said “I came, I saw, I made friends, and I went home”. Not one battle was fought, not one colony seized, and nobody was enslaved. Throughout history, China, made up of 56 different races, has always subscribed to the principles of tolerance, forgiveness and self-commitment. With such a breadth of mind, China has been able to embrace the world, digest and absorb foreign cultures and ways of thinking without being insistent of its might and assertive of its power. What was successful and operative in the Han Dynasty could still be adopted for use in the Tang and Sung Dynasties. The Chinese cultural core values were adjustable through centuries to be made applicable to the time and provide solutions to the problems at that time. In the 14th century, the Renaissance delivered Europe from the darkness of the Middle Ages, freed minds, stimulated innovation and creativity in literature, art, science and technology and hastened the birth of individualism, capitalism and colonialism. The Industrial Revolution, together with the advancement of seamanship, empowered the West to stretch its influence around the globe and starting in the 15th century, the West “knocked” on the ancient door of China. The First “Knock” on China’s door The first-ever attempt by the West to open up China began in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, during which Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit priest, visited China. Not only did he come to preach Christianity, but also spread the Western knowledge of mathematics, medicine and astronomy, enriching hugely China’s knowledge in science and philosophical thinking. At the same time, Western priests admired the Chinese culture and values. Ricci once sighed that the ideals of The Republic of Plato defining justice and order of the city-state, and just man, had already been realized in China. Joachim Bouvet, who was a French priest and Sinologist, is worthy of notice. In 1688, after Bouvet had arrived in Peking as a French royal mathematician, he took over as Emperor Kangxi’s teacher of western studies. He made a thorough study of the Chinese Classics and concluded that a certain period in the Chinese history does not belong to the Chinese only, but to all of mankind. From the Book of Changes, Yijing, Bouvet felt a close correlation between the Chinese primitive eight trigram and the Western binary numeral system proposed by Leibniz. In 1701, he wrote to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a German philosopher, creator of infinitesimal calculus and regarded as the Aristotle of the 17th century, showing the diagram of the Fuxi 64 Gua Sequence and Pixel. Leibniz was surprised at the discovery of the proof of his self-invented binary numeral system in Yijing from China. Indeed, all digital products evolving from the binary numeral system that we are using today could have been embedded with the wisdom of Yijing. This was the first attempt by the Western civilization to come into contact with China mediated through religion, philosophies and sciences. In the late Kangxi era, however, mandarins were still

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

enthralled in their own cultural refinement and did not feel challenged at all. Following a lengthy dispute over religious protocol between China and the Vatican, the door for cultural exchange was callously closed, leading to a state of mutual isolation. Second “Knock” on China’s door In the 18th century, Britain’s Industrial Revolution, America’s War of Independence and France’s Great Revolution dramatically changed the face of Western civilization. Modernization of human society became an irresistible historical trend, but the Chinese – still complacent at that time in national peace and splendor -- were completely unaware of the misfortune about to befall them. Western countries, aiming to enrich themselves with natural resources through their military supremacy, forcibly expanded colonialism to the East. . For a long time, China’s Foreign Trade had focused on exporting tea and agricultural products, fine silks and porcelain, which the West purchased with silver. Following the Industrial Revolution, Britain, desparately trying to recover the huge amounts of silver it had paid China, flooded China with opium and so were able to plunder over one and half million kilograms of silver in the following four decades. In response, and painfully aware of the hazards of opium , the Chinese Government decided to prohibit opium smoking, seized the drug, and destroyed it. In 1840, Britain, prompted by the British opium merchants, invaded China and launched the First Opium War. China then, as the main Power in the East, enjoyed about one-third of global GDP, and had military forces of 800,000. The British had just 7,000 men in their expeditionary force. China lost the war. Hardly had the Qing Government negotiated grossly unequal treaties with Britain and the other invaders than the Second Opium War had started in 1860, when China’s GDP was 1.6 times that of Britain. China lost again. Beset with troubles internally and externally, the Chinese Emperor, in 1860, ordered that the advanced military technologies of the West must be learned. The first Westernization Movement saw the initiation of new industries to improve military hardware. A new navy and land forces were established. More schools were built and the students were sent overseas. The disastrous Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1894 when China’s GDP was five times that of Japan. And China lost the war. Throughout the recent 2,000 years of Chinese history, GDP of China ranked first globally. Even following the two Opium Wars, in 1840 and 1860, when China lost to the British, China’s GDP constituted one-third of the world’s total volume. When China lost the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894, China’s GDP was five times higher than that of Japan. China then realized that its GDP represented prosperity and not proportionate national strength. China was big and prosperous, but not healthy and strong. Ever since 1840, for more than 100 years, after being brought to its knees at gun point by the West, China was awakened, suddenly realizing that it had to catch up with the Western world,

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

and has since strived successively to strengthen its military, economy and political developments. The Self-Strengthening Movement in 1861 attempted to introduce military reforms but failed. In 1898, the Hundred Days’ Reform, aimed to set up a constitutional monarchy, was crushed by the Royal Court after one hundred days. Sun Yat-sen was successful in overthrowing the Ching dynasty ending Imperialism in China in 1911, but the reformed governing structure that was put in its place did not last long. The May Fourth Movement which took place in 1919 was a cultural revolution in nature with adoption of Western values of democracy and science for strengthening the country. China, taken to task by the West, began to question whether the traditional core values of its ancestors were still applicable to manage the cogent problems of the modern time. Such a debate leading to the reforms and self-renewal movements that followed throughout the various stages of China’s modernization process in the last century, embraced the ideals of inheriting the past and ushering in the future. Even into the formative stages of the new People’s Republic after 1949, China has been preoccupied with one major task- modernization through a series of process of self-reflection, self-renewal, and self-fortification trying to re-endow the traditional core values with new meanings and applications. Because of the unfavorable international environment and domestic limitations, repeated reforms and movements failed to provide a forlorn and war-torn China with all-round modernization. The traditional cultural core values, however, which had, for many times, been on the verge of being forsaken and denounced, had provided the very necessary cohesive spiritual force to hold and bind the Chinese people together through these periods of trial and tribulation. The Third “Knock” The third “knock” on the door of China came in the 1970s. In the midst of the cold war and international events, in 1972, US President Richard Nixon visited China, offering an olive branch to China to integrate into the global economic system of the era. When Deng Xiaoping came into power, China began walking down the path of development of a socialist market economy with Chinese characteristic. With rapid economic advancement, China moved towards a moderately well-off society. Over the past 40 years since Nixon’s visit to China, the Chinese people have created one miracle after another as the country basically resolved the problem of feeding its 1.3 billion populations. The wish for a moderately well-off society has begun to be fulfilled. This was perceived as the third attempt of opening up China by the West. Unlike the previous two attempts, China was introduced to Western social systems and concepts of market economy and international trade. Nixon’s visit kicked off a string of multifaceted social contact between China and the West. This was of vital importance to China’s modernization as it was conducive to integrating such an ancient giant civilization into the modernized international system. Different Past, Common Future Chinese and Americans are two very different peoples in terms of historical backgrounds and cultural core values, and that speaks volume of the importance of dialogue in facilitating mutual understanding. Dialogue is the only means through which disputes could be settled and mitigated.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

We each have a different past, but together, we have a common future. Ladies and gentlemen, today, we live in a time of considerable uncertainty. How do we hold onto our innate culture on the one hand, and keep abreast of the times while preserving harmonious coexistence on the other? This is a question that we will be discussing these two days. We shall explore the roots of the problems affecting the two countries: What are our respective core values? What are the similarities and differences in respect of the world outlook, concept of time, social regulation and political system? How do we define justice, happiness, success and beauty? What is the ultimate goal of a nation? What is the ultimate pursuit of an individual? How do we interpret “self”? How are the core values be made pertinent generation after generation? How do core values get established as core values? Are ancient civilizations and modernized nation states compatible? Is the liberal democratic system of government of the West applicable to all countries? Can Asian cultures and values have a foothold in the world? Will the future international order likely to become uni-polar or multi-polar? Can China rise peacefully? Can any country rise peacefully? Is mutual trust a term of convenience or does it really comes into the equation of international relationship? What kind of US-China relationship is possible and is desirable to everybody? How do we construct a new form of US-China relations? Why is Chinabashing still a favorite hobby for politicians during election times and for the US news media all the time?

Editor-in-Chief Dr. HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平) Deputy Chairman and Secretary-General China Energy Fund Committee

* This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

contents Special issue: Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order Editor’ s Notes Knock, Knock, Knock HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平)

Keynote Speeches of Sino-US Colloquium (IV)

How to get to know Other People? McCARRICK, Theodore E.

The Positive Effect of having Dialogue TU Weiming (杜維明)

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Core Values in Transforming Societies Preserving yet Transcending Differences Inclusive Toleration: a basic Prerequisite for Respecting and Understanding other’s Core Values JI Baocheng (紀寶成)

Are “Global Core Values” Possible? MITCHELL, Joshua

Unpredictable or Predicatable? - Globalisation, Cultralism and Confucian Values YAO Xinzhong (姚新中)

Something America and China Could Do Together FULLER, Robert W.

East-West Encounters Differences and Commonalities in Core Values The Multiple Universalities in the Era of Globalization CHEN Lai (陳來)

Harmony as a Principle of World Culture YANG Guorong (楊國榮)

From China’s History to her Legal System ROOSEVELT-WELD, Susan

The New Cultural Landscape in International Relations YUAN Ming (袁明)

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Nation State versus Civilization State Core Values in Understanding State Behaviors Basic Values, Core Values, and Cultural Configurations of Values LI Chenyang (李晨陽)

Can there be Universal Human Core Values for a World Order? A Catholic Perspective CASANOVA, José

Understanding Powers in the Future ZHAO Tingyang (趙汀陽)

The Role of Trust in Sino-American Relations CHANIS, Jonathan

Conflict Resolution Through Dialogue of Core Values Confucian and Christian Perspectives

Scripture Reasoning for Dialogue YANG Huilin (楊慧林)

World Order in Catholic Social Teaching CHRISTIANSEN, Drew, S.J.

The Remaking of World Order and the Role of Chinese Universal Values GUO Yi (郭沂)

The Possibility of Creating a Truly Global Ethics SWIDLER, Leonard J.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Hegemony, Multipolarity or Non-polarity The Future of History Sino-U.S. Relationship: an Ideology Perspective XIANG Lanxin (相藍欣)

If Liberal Democratic Values are in fact Universal, then Whither China? DALY Robert

Confucian Value of Righteousness in Cultural Context KIM Kwang-ok (金光億)

102

America the Philosophical and China ROMANO, Carlin

105

War and Peace Can China and the US Avoid the Tragedy of Great Power Politics? War and Peace: can China and U.S. avoid the Tragedy of Great Power Conflict? HUANG Ping (黃平)

110

Liberal Communitarianism as a Global Normative Convention ETZIONI, Amitai

113

Domestic and Foreign Policy Orientation of New Chinese Leadership YANG Rui (楊銳)

115

China’s Rise, Not U.S. Decline GLASER, Bonnie S.

118

China’s Third Knock on the Door of the World HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平)

121

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

How to get to know Other People? McCARRICK, Theodore E

Keynote Speeches of Sino-US Colloquium (IV) How to get to know Other People? McCARRICK, Theodore E. The Positive Effect of having Dialogue TU Weiming (杜維明)

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

How to get to know Other People? McCARRICK, Theodore E

How to get to know Other People? McCARRICK, Theodore E. Cardinal, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington

t is a special pleasure to be back with the China Energy Fund. I remember so well my first opportunity at the United Nations a short while ago when it was my privilege to discuss principles and philosophy with one of the outstanding Confucian leaders of China. And you may recall when we were there we agreed on almost everything, so much so that I thought he was practicing to become a Catholic cardinal and he thought I was practicing to become a master of Confucius learning. It would have done me very good to do the second I’m not sure it would have done him so much good to do the third although he could have been elected Pope one never knows. I want to really, basically, almost follow through on that extraordinary presentation of Patrick Ho, who gave us in a short time an amazingly accurate and poetic history of China, especially of China as related to the West and related to the different facets of Western civilization, including religion, arts, and philosophy. I do not have the brilliance or the learning to match Patrick, but I’m just going to take out a couple of things that I think would be important and perhaps stimulating as we begin our discussion today. The discussion of core values I gather from my last conversation with my Confucian scholar basically comes on something which ultimately I find in my own religious life the key core value of everything. And it is the respect for the dignity of the human person. All of Christian philosophy, certainly all of Catholic philosophy, depends on that. It is that which is the basic principle on which all things are figured, on which all things are guided and are ordered: The dignity of the human person. We are all members of the one family; we are

brothers and sisters in God’s one human family, I say as a believer. And I think it is obvious to all of us that what unites us is so much stronger than what divides us because we are intimately, fundamentally, and exclusively, members of that one human family and it is that which gives rise to our history, good or bad, to our economy, good or bad, and to all the relationships, good or bad, which we have with each other. The recognition of the dignity of the human person—that no one should be a slave, that no one should be looked down on, that racial differences are accidental. Everything is accidental except the dignity of the human person, that is the founding principle on which really all philosophy that is accurate, all philosophy that is foundational has to be reached. Yesterday I had a very interesting meeting. I was at a location just about a block from here. And it was a meeting of a very important group basically of young people such as I see here in which they were discussing the question of the, I want to say the challenge, the puzzle in as many words, of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. And the group was formed in a very interesting way—there were young people, old people, people on the left, people on the right, people in the center— and the whole group was working together for this one cause: to find a channel for arriving at peace in the what we call the Holy Land, peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And the young man who had really been organizing it, a very brilliant young man by name of Gabriel Calil, who is himself a Palestinian, I was sitting with him and I mentioned, this is so interesting because there are so many different backgrounds, so many different principles, so many different ways of looking at this question

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

How to get to know Other People? McCARRICK, Theodore E

that it is amazing that we can get people to talk together about a solution. And he said to me something which you know, we know, we all know but it is so good to have it recited once in a while. He said really, you could put up with all kinds of different politics as long as you share the same principles. And I think this is what Dr. Ho was saying earlier: you can, you can put up with all kinds of different outlooks and all kinds of different methodologies as long as the core values are there and the dignity of the human person is probably the only way we will get to the answer of this terrible question of peace in the Holy Land, this very vexing problem of the Israeli-Palestinian relations. The dignity of the human person if we all recognize that on both sides. And if we, who look at it from apart from that area, have a chance to move into it with any kind of understanding, we will lose completely our compass unless we have as our core value the dignity of the human person. Because if persons don’t matter, then how do you put them together, how do you get them to make compromises? I think perhaps that might even be useful in the American Congress these days too. One might want to give them a lesson in the dignity of the human person. Or the dignity of other senators and representatives. But that is beyond my scope and I don’t dare go beyond it. The philosophers have many many sayings, which have come down in history. Some of them are absolutely undeniable, and others are fascinating but I want to begin by the old Heraclitean observation that you can never put your foot in the same river twice, because ___, because all things flow and all things become different. And I think that is a guide for our philosophy and it’s a guide for history. Because history changes, and people change, and notions change, and fundamental values seem to change. But even though you cannot put your foot in the same river twice, you can certainly put your foot in the same element of water, and it is the basis that is more important than the accident of where and when and how. So I want to talk to that, just I’m taking a

completely different point of view , an ideal, a good deal with the Middle East, that deal very much with our Muslim brothers and sisters. And they will often say to me, you know we, Christianity and Islam must get together because combined, we make up so much of the world and if we can find peace there, then the world can find peace; vice versa, if we cannot find harmony there, we will not be able to find an end to the struggle and conflict. And they say to me, well, Islam has one billion plus adherents, and Christianity has one billion plus adherents, and they begin to make wonderful programs on this, and realistic demands, that we get together, that we talk together, and we find out where we can build a consensus, where we can build a relationship, where we can build a peaceful coexistence. But as I was preparing to come here today and to chat with you, I realize that that is also true of Christianity and China. China has billion plus people, Christianity has a billion plus people, so our relationship as Christians is not only as Christians and Muslims, it is in a very special way also Christians and the huge extraordinary population of China. So I’m very conscious of that, and conscious of the things which we have in common, and to go back to what Patrick was saying, these core values are what we really have in common. This is why my conversation with my friend from the Confucian Society are so amiable and so positive, because you can read Confucius and find the dignity of the own person and respect for each other and the importance of love, the importance of friendship, is very much in the Confucian literature, as it is in the Christian literature, as it is in Catholic teaching. You just go fifty years back to the that great meeting which we had under the about to be made a saint Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council which took place in the 1960s, and you can find there this understanding of, in a very special, beautiful, even poetic way, the understanding of what is the human person, what is the relationship we must have with one another, and what are the reasons we must have this and it is our recognition of their dignity, as

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

How to get to know Other People? McCARRICK, Theodore E

our brothers and sisters, it doesn’t matter what race, it doesn’t matter what language group, doesn’t matter what any of the accidentals are that describe our neighbor, -that neighbor is our brother and sister in God’s one human family. And it is on that that we must build our peace, it is on that that we must build our understanding, it is on that that we must build our happiness in which the world can flourish and in which good things can take place. Now all these different comparisons and these different connections between let us say the Catholic Church, which I can speak from because I belong to it and have belonged to it sometimes when you get as old as I am you think for centuries, but let me just look at it, just for a moment, even doctrines of Catholics and the Communist doctrine. First of all it depends on some basic principles. They are not necessarily the same principles but they are basic principles. Secondly, it depends on loyalty to those principles. Now I wish I can say that in the Catholic Church everyone has total loyalty all the time to every principle, and I’m sure you would want to say to me in China everyone has total loyalty to every principle. Well this is the real world, and we more or less are in this position. So you have principles, binding principles, you have loyalty to those principles, and then you try to have a long term view of how these principles are applied in different situations as time goes by. This is when I was talking to Phil Midland earlier coming down and he’s fascinated by the whole question of discernment: how you discern what these principles are, how you discern how these principle are applicable in different times, and how you find the discerner. In a certain sense we find the discerner in our Pope; you find the discerner in the president of the People’s Republic. And their job is essentially to discern how these doctrines are applicable today. They are not able to change the doctrines, but they can discern their viability, their ability to change lives, their ability to mark progress in society. And we are doing that now with the new pope, and you were doing it with the new president, and I see interesting connections.

I was in China in June and we were talking about everyone in China was saying tell us about the new pope, and I was saying tell us about Xi Jinping. So we all need to know, and I think that is part of the excitement of being together, and it is part of the excitement of being able to try to understand each other as we try to understand the leaders that we work with. I have seen President Xi with a number, with meeting ordinary people; I have seen him on the streets in pictures of streets of Shanghai or _ or places like that. You see the Holy Father too in the areas: him in Brazil, where he leaves his entourages and plunges into the midst of a group of people who are very, thank God, who love him and who want to be with him but you know you always can get one who doesn’t love him and who wants to get rid of him, and that’s of course is the problem of notoriety and of power today. So they are both people who are willing to talk to the ordinary people, to those who are not in government, and they are also willing to look at society in a new way. The Holy Father continues to talk about reforming the different parts of the Church; President Xi talks very often, as far as I read, in reforming part of the government, reforming the way that power is exercised and the way that it is shared with the different agencies. And each of them has a new vision so that not only is our world faced with a large Christianity of more than a billion and a large China of more than a billion, but these great masses of human beings, brothers and sisters all, they share this new vision and, and I have to put it into words, this is where the difficulty comes. We always used to say that dialogue begins, forgive me if you’ve heard me say this before, I say this all the time when you get old, you will have one or two ideas and you keep repeating them all the time you’re none of you have reached that age but when you do, remember that I told you—, the dialogue begins by people talking to each other. Now that doesn’t mean with each other. To each other. You can talk to people and not engage in conversation. We’ve all done that; we talk to people and we tell them something they

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

How to get to know Other People? McCARRICK, Theodore E

don’t want to hear it and they pretend to listen and it doesn’t make any difference. The second stage is when you talk with them, when you have a conversation, and I think that is where the Catholic Church has to be now, and that is where China has to continue to be now. And the third is to get to understand what the other person is saying. It’s easy to talk with somebody and really not understanding what the value of his or her words are, as compared to the values and the inner meanings of what you’re saying. And talking to, talking with, understanding. And once you understand, if you have any sense of humanity and any respect for the dignity of the human person, once you understand then you can appreciate…and that is the next stage. Talking to, talking with, understanding, appreciating. And it is then that you can begin to work together. And we all have to do that somehow. And that is the present Holy Father is very conscious of that, very conscious that the stages have to be there, and he is certainly willing to understand that he may appreciate and that he may work together. And I suspect that the new government in China may have that same willingness, that same understanding, that same desire to enter into not just the ordinary diplomatic conversations that can really have little contact with reality, but a conversation that is meaningful, a conversation that is understood, appreciated, and gives the basis for working together. It is wonderful to get to know other people, but if you never work together with them, then you accomplish nothing except some I guess intellectual exercise. But the world needs more than intellectual exercise, the world needs people to work together, and I think this is what the China Energy Fund is all about, this is what all our meetings are about. One of the things I said when I was in China I said we got to get President Xi to meet Pope Francis and that’s one of my hopes and maybe the China Energy Fund can be one of the instruments that bring that about. I am delighted to be here, honored to be here, I know I will learn a great deal. You didn’t learn much from me but at least you had the chance to see what an old enthusiastic in the

American sense looks like. God bless you all. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Positive Effect of having Dialogue TU Weiming (杜維明)

The Positive Effect of having Dialogue TU Weiming (杜維明) Professor of Philosophy and Dean of Institute for Advanced Humanistic Studies, Peking University

embers of the China Energy Fund Committee, colleagues from Georgetown University, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I’m greatly honored and really very pleased to attend this remarkable SinoAmerican Colloquium on core values and world order. On behalf of the Beijing Forum and the Institute for Advanced Humanistic Studies at Peking University, I would like to welcome you all to this gathering at the historical Carnegie Library. For your information, the first SinoAmerican Dialogue on core values took place in a newly furbished seminar room in the middle island of Weiming Lake on the campus of Peking University. In collaboration with the Beijing Forum in November 2010, the dialogue participants included Robert Bella, Richard Medson, Jo Ashrick, as well as Yang Rui and Huang Ping, I think they are here with us for this colloquium. The second Sino-American Dialogue was held at the newly constructed Stanford Center on the campus of Peking University in November 2012, one year later. Ken Lebinthal and Etzioni both took part in the edifying conversation. Shortly after the meeting, at Prof. Etzioni’s suggestion, we organized a third dialogue at the Claremont hotel in Berkeley, in December, one year, one month later of 2012, 2013. The dialogue was attended by Prof. Robert Bellah again, Francis Fukuyama, Ann Swisler, sociologist at UC Berkeley, Fu Jun, who directs the institute of government at Peking University, and Xiang Bin, was the Dean of Changjiang Business School, and professor and former president of

Oberlin, Robert Fuller, who is with us for this colloquium. I would like to share my personal reflection on this colloquium, with a view to the future. A genuine dialogue is not a location for conversion, is not even a location for making a statement about one’s own faith community, in my case, the Confucian tradition, or even simply an opportunity to try to correct what has been perceived as misunderstanding of your own position. So what is the purpose of dialogue? I think the primary purpose of dialogue is to cultivate the art of listening, as the cardinal already pointed out. It’s an opportunity to open our own horizon, extend our own horizon, and hence our own self reflexivity, the critical spirit. So I’m primarily here as a student to listen, so this opening talk is simply an invitation for continuous conversation, hopefully they will be a tiny stream that flows long, 細水長流, rather than simply a one shot deal, because the SinoAmerican Dialogue is too important, too critical, not to be sustained, continued. I would argue perhaps the most powerful ideology in human history up to this point is the Enlightenment Movement since the 18th century. It is the movement that led to the rise of capitalism and socialism; it’s the movement that was responsible for all the major institutions in the world today: market economy, democratic polity, civil society, modern research universities, multinational corporations, civil and military bureaucracies. But values that underlie this movement, what we now call universal values, are probably to me, more

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Positive Effect of having Dialogue TU Weiming (杜維明)

significant. What are these values, core values of the human community as a whole, developed, nurtured by the Enlightenment? Freedom, rationality, due process of law or simply, legality, human rights, at least rights consciousness, political rights in particular, and the dignity of the individual. So these are universal, and at least universalizable rights, core values. But, Mr. Buchanan, who was a neoclassic economist, I had the privilege of presenting a paper some time ago at George Washington University, and James Buchanan and Francis Fukuyama were my commentators. My paper was on “Beyond Enlightenment Mentality”. Mr. Buchanan, later confided to me in a private conversation that for years and years he’s committed to simply the idea of freedom. He thinks that freedom is all that is needed, all the other values will come if you have the freedom to think, to explore, to develop. But after the Enron fiasco, he said responsibility is also important. But he then added, even with the responsibility, it is not good enough. We need to cultivate people,

especially powerful, influential people who are decent. So freedom, a great value, but cannot simply stand alone. Rationality. Max Weber characterized the whole modernizing process as a process of rationalization. And of course, in the Greek, the Greeks defined the human being as a rational animal; the importance of rationality is beyond dispute. But what kind of rationality? Is it merely instrumental rationale or we should say have a mass notion about communicative rationalism? Max Weber, even though overwhelmed by the importance of rationality, he became very concerned, worried, about the modernity that evolved out of this rational process. Because he said the world would be dominated simply by managers and experts; it may even turn out to be an iron cage rather than a land for human flourishing. Law is absolutely important; but we know how litigiousness, can be costly, detrimental to the human spirit. Lawyers are necessary, but if there are too many lawyers.. we have lawyers in the United States, you know, also my country—I became a naturalized American

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Positive Effect of having Dialogue TU Weiming (杜維明)

citizen in 1976, there are more lawyers in the United States than all the lawyers in all the world combined. And when we become litigious, we worried. Human rights is absolutely critical. I think in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our two major Confucian scholars participated. In fact, one of them, Wu Deyao, was the drafter of the Constitution because he assisted Mrs. Roosevelt in all of her work on the Universal Declaration, and they wanted to make it totally acronymical, totally comprehensive, that’s why even the idea of God does not enter into the idea because they may privilege the monotheistic traditions at the expense of others. So it’s very broadly engaged so to say we are against human rights is very strange: no civilization, if it is a civilization, should against human rights. And yet if it is exercised without other great values may turn out to be problematical. For example, I respect your human right; you respect mine. I’m a billionaire; you are homeless. I don’t have to give you any money, any support on legal or moral grounds based on human rights discourse. I respect your human right, but I don’t want to have anything to do with you. Unless there is also the notion that the people who are more powerful, more influential have more access to information and ideas ought to be more obligated for the well-being of the large group, otherwise human rights discourse itself cannot generate moral consciousness. Dignity of the individual. This is absolutely critical. And yet Robert Bellah has made it very persuasive in his “Habits of the Heart”, if the dignity of the individual, is generated of course the idea of the dignity of the human person, is absolutely critical for human survival and flourishing, but if the individualism has become a kind of, what he calls, Robert Bellah calls, possessive individualism, as a kind of egoism, it may turn to be a curse, rather than a way of human flourishing. Understandably, in the last fifty years, some of the most brilliant minds in North America and Europe, including of course some in East Asia, have been powerful critics of Enlightenment mentality, because the

perception of the familists, of the ecologists, of people who subscribe to cultural diversity, religious pluralism, and of course the communitarianists as Etzioni, one of our speakers here, is a leading communitarian scholar, Michael Sandel, at Harvard for example, Macentire and Charles Taylor, and they are very critical of the Enlightenment, partly because of the unintended negative consequences; enlightenment mentality has become very much of a anthropocentrism celebration of anthropocentrism with no respect for the world beyond. It’s instrumental rationality at its worst: vacant idea that knowledge is power, rather than the classical Greek or Confucian idea of knowledge as wisdom has led to a very aggressive industrializing process. Therefore, many other values ought to be introduced in addition to liberty, rationality, due process of law, human rights and the dignity of the individual: liberty without justice, or freedom without justice--I think the Islamic world has taught us the importance of justice; rationality without sympathy, empathy, or the Buddhist idea of compassion--though instrumental rationality has cool headed reflection, it’s not good enough; due process of law, legality, is absolutely critical but without a sense of civility, civil engagement, civil responsibility, that’s not good enough; rights without responsibility, dignity of the individual, without a sense of social solidarity-of course, the Chinese idea of social harmony-is not good enough; therefore, the importance of dialogue, the dialogue of these two, all great, sets of values. I’m not saying Western values, Eastern values, Chinese values and American values, but the values embodied in the Enlightenment. But then also values embodied in Confucianism, Christianity, and many other traditional values. So the dialogue is not only among civilizations; the dialogue between science and faith; the dialogue between the past and the present. My personal involvement in dialogue, or in the process of trying to create what may be called a dialogical civilization, began twenty or twenty-five years ago. 2001, I

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Positive Effect of having Dialogue TU Weiming (杜維明)

became a group of so called eminent persons to facilitate the dialogue among civilizations appointed by Kofi Annan. After a long discussion with Hans Koon, I think we agree, the two basic principles: the idea of the golden rule stated in the negative, which is the Confucian golden rule, but also the Jewish golden rule, “Do not do to others what you do not want others do to you”, ought to be considered as the minimal requirement for dialogical relationship; not “do to other what you want others do to you”--“Do to others what you want others do to you” is a great principle but it can also be aggressive, it’s not considered enough of the integrity of the other--, but “do not do to others what you do not want others do to you” is a passive principle, it has to be augmented by the positive principle of “when I establish myself I help others establish themselves”, “I enlarge myself I help others to enlarge themselves”; not just “己所不欲勿施於人”，but also “己欲立而立人，己欲達而達人”. And it’s in this sense that the dialogue begins with tolerance. Without tolerance there is no way for any kind of dialogical relationship, but tolerance is a minimum requirement. We have to rise above tolerance to embrace a sense of recognition; we have to recognize the other, the intrinsic value of the other; only then can we develop a sense of respect. With respect, there’s the possibility of mutual reference, and mutual learning, and we may even cultivate the spirit of celebrating difference. And in a way, Chinese culture, especially in terms of paths toward self-realization, celebrates diversity: three teachings in one, not just the Confucian way, but the Daoist way, the Buddhist way. Right now we think there are five major teachings in China in addition to Confucianism, Daoism, sand Buddhism; we have to consider Christianity and Islam as integral part of Chinese culture. I’d like to end with a simple reflection on what I, for the last few years, trying to develop a sense of spiritual humanism, as a humanism, not the secular humanism as we just described in the Enlightenment, but a spiritual humanism which is sensitive to, and responsive to, all

spiritual traditions. And hopefully this humanism can be cultivated in cultural China. When I use the term “cultural China”, I mean three symbolic universes, not just the of course, the first one is the People’s Republic of China, including Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, and Singapore, which is made of 76% ethnic and cultural Chinese, the Chinese diaspora, and also the third symbolic universe, an increasing number of people who are connected with China neither by birth nor by marriage but concerned about the future of Chinese culture. The current situation, China is extremely successful, at least perceived by the economists as an developing economy, may become the largest economy soon. But we know, in terms of the life experience that per capita is very very low, probably below 90 in terms of international ranking. So the Chinese people in general is still poor on the average. Maybe there is ten thousand billionaires, eight hundred members of the middle class or high middle class, many of them have green cards and dual citizenship; they can afford to have their children to be educated abroad, not just in college but in high school. But the overwhelming majority of Chinese, let’s say, hundred million, still suffering from poverty stricken environment. And the success of our economy is obvious. But the negative consequences, and the cost for that success is grave. The society has been marketized; not only the government, therefore, a lot of rampant corruption; the business community, most of people are driven by greed rather than any sense of justice; the academic community is totally marketized: many universities are for sale; even religious organizations: you go to temples, many of the monks you don’t consider them spiritual people; they are accountants. And this is a horrible situation, very rampant. As a result the Social fabric is being seriously damaged, moral foundation eroded. So there is a tremendous sense of agony and frustration among average Chinese in terms of spiritual self-transformation. That’s the reason why we now experience truthfully a cultural renaissance. In recent

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Positive Effect of having Dialogue TU Weiming (杜維明)

survey, if you find key words in the Chinese mass media, Chinese are very patriotic, 愛國; they are very proud and very pleased with the China status in the world. But some of the psychological terms such as nervousness, insecurity, lack of direction, no meaning in life, anger, jealousy. Very rampant. So the society has incredible energy but the energy has not yet been properly channeled or mobilized. So the danger, as I see it, Robert Bellah pointed out in the last dialogue is a kind of unchecked nationalism under the disguise of patriotism. Robert Bellah also worried about American nationalism. And recently two of my great friends, Ikea billaroni ? of Columbia, and Ashis Nadi of India, also deeply worried about Indian nationalism. And they worry that the patriotism as developed by Ghandi and Tigore are now undermined by a kind of religious fundamentalism of Hinduism. So, I think spiritual humanism as a way of reconstructing, looking for an identity, Chinese identity, culturally sophisticated identity which is open, pluralistic and self-reflexive, is not only good for China, for east Asia, but for the rest of the world. There are four dimensions to this spiritual humanistic inquiry. First, is the question of the self: integration of the body, the heart and mind, and the spirit of the self; and this of course, the self-cultivation philosophy, and how can this be done, in the government, in mass media, in the business community, in university--everywhere. The second is the question about social relationships. Not just the “guanxi” idea, but the family, nature, the world, and beyond. The third one is the sustainable harmonious relationship with nature. I think, for the first time since the founding of the People’s Republic, the leadership has now fully recognized economic development is only part of the story. In addition to economic development, there are other four dimensions: Political, social, cultural, and ecological. Therefore holistic development: the negotiation between ecology and economics, which is a painfully difficult process going on in China. But in addition to these three dimensions, many

scholars simply say these are all sufficient: self, community, and nature. The fourth dimension I want us to go over is Heaven: the functional equivalent of God, Yahweh, Logos, or Brahmin. China cannot afford to be totally atheistic; although atheistic is fine, but irreligious or religious unmusical people? We need to go beyond the mentality of class struggle, the mentality of dominating everything according to our own will, our own power, and to develop a human, a humane responsibility. And how can we do that? We cannot do it alone. We have to engage ourselves in the series of dialogues. The dialogue between China and the United States is the most critical. But the other dialogues between the Chinese and Hindus, between the Chinese and the Muslims, Chinese and the Latin American countries and Africans. And it is in this context that the dialogue we do in here is not simply spiritual exercise; even though it has very profound spiritual meaning, it has very practical consequences. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Inclusive Toleration: a basic Prerequisite for Respecting and Understanding other’s Core Values JI Baocheng (紀寶成)

Core Values in Transforming Societies Preserving yet Transcending Differences

Inclusive Toleration: a basic Prerequisite for Respecting and Understanding other’s Core Values JI Baocheng (紀寶成)

Are “Global Core Values” Possible? MITCHELL, Joshua

Unpredictable or Predicatable? Globalisation, Cultralism and Confucian Values YAO Xinzhong (姚新中)

Something America and China Could Do Together FULLER, Robert W.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Inclusive Toleration: a basic Prerequisite for Respecting and Understanding other’s Core Values JI Baocheng (紀寶成)

Inclusive Toleration: a basic Prerequisite for Respecting and Understanding other’s Core Values JI Baocheng (紀寶成) Former President of Renmin University of China; Special Researcher of Counsellors’ Office of the State Council; Member of National Education Examination Steering Committee

“

The Fourth China-U.S. Colloquium: Core Values and World Order” is being held in the center of American politics, Washington D.C., during the clear skies and sunny days of October. This is truly a significant and congratulatory event in U.S-China academic and cultural exchange. It is an honor for me to be invited to participate in and address the colloquium. Towards this end, I wish to develop a constructive discussion and share with all my colleagues here, our American friends in particular, my personal opinions on the issue of “core values” and the reshaping of “world order”. In my personal opinion, the main current of the contemporary world is peaceful development; something which is an irreversible historical trend. However, this trend’s progress has been arduous owing to a cultural hegemony of specific special interests, moral selfrighteousness, and political superiority, which has often seriously disturbed the progress of peaceful global development. This has lead to cultural rifts, conflicts of civilizations, and even to regional warfare, all of which is undisputed. In order to avoid conflict it is necessary to carry out dialogue, reduce misunderstandings, and overcome meddling. On the foundation of abundant communication we can adhere to correct standpoints, make consideration for multiple viewpoints, enhance mutual

understanding, establish common consensus, and seek common ground. This can be done while reserving differences and building mutual trust and cooperation. The prerequisite of this kind of dialogue is frank honesty and seeking out mutually important topics. In the case of the U.S. and China, the number one and the number two global economies respectively, this is of special necessity and urgency. In my view, re-identifying Chinese and American cultural core values, both their similarities and differences, and interpreting their rationality and legitimacy, is the foundation and starting point to construct positive Sino-U.S relations and a new world order. In this sense the main theme of this forum is very appropriate and of great relevance.. Given China and America’s distinct history and culture and the differences in problems that these two countries face, it has been impossible to unify core values. I am not denying that both countries do not hold identical or similar positions, for example, both pursue prosperity, advocate democracy, promote justice, and support progress. The realization by both China and America of these common desires possess universal significance. From a philosophical foundation, this is the universality of contradiction. Due to differences in history, culture, tradition and national conditions, China and

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Inclusive Toleration: a basic Prerequisite for Respecting and Understanding other’s Core Values JI Baocheng (紀寶成)

America may have unique perspectives when facing problems. Many different approaches and unique methods to fulfilling their respective goals create different characteristics that cannot and should not be made uniform. This is the distinctiveness of contradiction. China does not deny American values and fully affirms America’s progress and development; however, China cannot acknowledge that American cultural values are the only choice or that America’s culture cannot be surpassed. China also does not acknowledge a dominate position of American culture requiring the world to carry out standardized values established by America. For the majority of people in the world, such a position and line of thinking are wishful thinking. From a theoretical perspective this is one-sided and from the perspective of implementation it is harmful and will certainly fail. My basic point of view is any single culture in the contemporary world cannot be selfsufficient in any single context; and that intercommunication among diverse civilizations is the only road in today’s global culture. Thus American political figures and scholars, when stressing and upholding their own concepts of core values and when defending and promoting their own national interests, should learn to observe issues on an equal footing, come down from its lofty position, and adopt a respectful and tolerant attitude in regard to the core values of other ethnic groups and countries. This change is extremely necessary and urgent in America’s treatment of the peacefully rising China. It is impossible for the United States to ignore or avoid the objective reality of China’s history, culture and power. The initiative to be friendly or hostile with China is in America’s own hands. I believe that American’s mainstream public opinion shows a willingness to befriend China. Everyone has their own dream and wish to see China and America travel a path of mutual prosperity and strength, and to both play active roles in building a new world order. To reach this goal, it is a prerequisite for both sides to understand and respect each other’s

core values. With its long history and its rich culture, China has made significant contributions to the civilizations of the world. China’s traditional cultural core values are highly precious historic and cultural heritages. It possesses clear distinctiveness, contains wide universalism, has provided a generous historical gift to China, and still serves today as motivation for continued advancement. In other words, its everlasting vitality and dynamism over the ages is rooted in the universal applicability of China’s core values. For instance, the “respect for morality and veneration for ancestors”, “harmony between humankind and nature”, “universal love and compassion”, “filial piety and sibling compassion”, “loyalty and trust”, and the “to temper force with mercy” are some specific examples of this long-standing cultural tradition. On many occasions have I emphasized that Chinese culture, both broad in scope and profound in content, contains diverse and splendid elements. Though opinions vary towards its innate core values, in my opinion, five basic notions can be viewed as most important to the whole body. The first is “universal fraternity”, which means, “benevolence for others” , “love the people”, “love each other”, and “don’t do to others what you do not want others to do to you”. The second is “fairness”, which refers to, “implementing grand rightness, fairness for all under heaven”, and “balance interests between haves and have-nots, because inequality rather than poverty produces social anxieties”. The third is justice, which refers to a “proper way of behavior, despise for material acquisition by improper means”, or “just cause enjoys abundant support”. The fourth is “middle ground” and “inclusive toleration”. In other words, the “doctrine of the mean is the basic principle of the universe” and “peace is most precious”. The fifth one is the “progressive spirit prompted by suffering”, which means to “thrive in misery and perish in material enjoyment” and a “person of integrity should make constant efforts for self-improvement”.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Inclusive Toleration: a basic Prerequisite for Respecting and Understanding other’s Core Values JI Baocheng (紀寶成)

I believe that in a world of multicultural co-existence and dialogue that the spirit of inclusive toleration embedded in traditional Chinese culture is worth advocating for and our special attention. Inclusive toleration means inclusiveness and tolerance for varying elements, which, in other words, is the state of harmony that we all pursue and admire. Inclusive toleration is both the manifestation of harmony and also the basic prerequisite to achieving harmony. During the Spring and Autumn Period more than two thousand five hundred years ago, ancient Chinese sages already recognized that “uniformity does not foster sustainable growth” while the mediation of divergent elements is regarded as the most ideal socio-political state. Yanzi used a culinary metaphor to elaborate on the value of blending and mediation. He compares the notion to the “process of soup-making --- fish is mixed with water, vinegar, meat sauce and salt. A wooden fire is lit to heat the soup. The cook churns the ingredients and seasons them to balance the flavor. Confucius and his disciples also believe that men of moral integrity may be agreeable with each other while reserving differences and that such amity is the most valuable rite”. After the Warring States Period, the notion of “harmony” and “tolerance” was elevated to a much higher philosophical level: “everything in the universe coexists without harming each other, and various roads run together without excluding each other”, “Everything under heaven is unanimous with varying nuances and different roads lead to the same goal”. The notion of peaceful coexistence, based on toleration, evolves fundamentally around intradependency and mutual support; so “everything has its own place and its potential can be played to the full”. In the eyes of China’s ancient sages, an extremely narrow vision or mind is not beneficial for success or social development. Just as the old saying puts it, “when water is too clear there are no fish, while one who is too examining has no disciples”. One of the most fatal human fragilities is “one’s ability to look into the vast

distance, while his or her own eyelashes are out of view”. Therefore the ideal state should be like a “sea containing countless streams and still finding room to embrace all”. Under their concept, just as a “foot is sometimes too short and an inch may at times be too long”, whether one has the capacity to take in different or even incorrect opinions is not only a leadership quality problem, but is even more so an issue of wisdom. That is why, according to the 63rd chapter of the Tao-te-Ching, a “sage never dominates others, and thus eventually reaches a state of greatness”. That is to say, if “one is modestly open-minded and humble towards others, and tolerates and accepts divergent things with courage and broad vision, he or she can consistently enrich and fulfill his or herself and unite him or herself with nature, other people, and mind and body in harmony”. In terms of national governance, a leader should conduct everything in a magnanimous fashion, be modest in behavior and broad in vision, and should be open to the wisdom of the masses instead of the individual, in the manner in which “rivers take in numerous streamlets. The man of moral integrity demands highly of him or herself while keeping an easy and tolerant attitude towards others”. In specific terms of personnel management, a leader should not demand perfection and be lenient with his or her subordinates; and he should learn from other peoples’ talents for his own purposes: “A talented person could live with the mediocre, a wise one with those of lesser wits, a profound one with those shallow in character, a simple one with those worldly”. In this manner a sage often comes to the rescue of other people and objects instead of abandoning them; thus people with different personalities and talents all can have a proper role to play in a society. In specific terms of cultural choice, while adhering to one’s own philosophical viewpoints, one should be open to other scholarly schools and fully assimilate rational elements to create an integration of ideas and cultural in order to create even wider space and maintain positive

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Inclusive Toleration: a basic Prerequisite for Respecting and Understanding other’s Core Values JI Baocheng (紀寶成)

energy. It is said that “all schools have their own talent, which can be of use” , that “the streams of different origins all return to the sea”; and that “all distinct schools are of service to governance”. On this basis, traditional Chinese political life has, through Legalism and Confucianism, gradually generated a cultural environment of toleration and harmony, which has long sustained social stability. The notion of harmony may appear to resemble the notion of homogeneity; but the two notions run contrary in nature. Homogeneity, by its nature, means to exclude and close up. Those with such mindset cannot tolerate strength, thought, or views that differ from his or their own. World history has shown that whenever harmony and toleration has been advocated, the world was usually experiencing a period of peace and economic prosperity, warm international relations, and tranquility for the people. These periods are also full of vitality and vigor. In marked contrast, there also appear certain people, certain religious, certain groups, and certain countries, which made themselves the center of existence and attempted to monopolize truth, thought, speech, and interests. Driven by their xenophobia, they refused to accept people of other ethnical origins as their equals; while such a position and attitude led the then world into unrecoverable disasters. As various conflicts widened in scale and worsened in degree, the resulting bloodshed and warfare plunged the masses into profound misery and produced serious consequences. Even those countries which prided themselves on being human rights defenders possess rather inglorious historical pasts. For instance, numerous massacres were committed in their own lands against unorthodox religions under the flag of “holy war”; while in others’ backyards unorthodox religious followers were eliminated during several crusades which were instigated under the halo of advancing the “gospel”. These historical tragedies, outside of being driven by the naked desire for material acquisition, were also rooted in the logic of

simply seeking homogeneity, which was the inevitable manifestation of exclusives and lack of toleration. This is also the conclusion of the reflection of why two world wars, which caused endless disaster, started in Europe. Even today, such exclusive appeal for seeking out cultural hegemony and a homogenous standard of civilization is still extremely popular and rampant. Cultural megalomania and superiority, in the case of some people, has not followed progress or the victories and transformation of our times. There are always people eager to play the role of “teachers” who, believing truth in their hands, occupy commanding positions in morality and politics and make criticisms of the systems chosen by other countries. Accordingly, so called “universal values” have been simplistically reduced to the core values of a few European and American countries; while the view that human rights is placed higher than sovereignty and that democracy occupies a higher position than any disagreements have been thrust against numerous developing countries including China. In this light international relations have naturally become tense and deadlocked; and the launching of normal cultural dialogue and exchange has become extremely difficult. Countries on the weaker side call for dialogue, but are unable to accept unequal positions of standing. These countries long for exchange, but cannot accept one-sided passive compromise. I believe that obstacles being faced in cultural exchange and dialogue between China and American are complicated and that both sides certainly bear responsibility. It should not be denied that, on the issue of launching Sino-American cultural exchange, and the matter of how to carry out China and U.S. cultural dialogue, that in the realm of Chinese academia there is no shortage of conservative isolationist voices cautious and wary of the slogan of “peaceful evolution” from the other side. This is actually the expression of weakness and a lack of self-confidence and cannot be taken as authoritative. However, it is

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Inclusive Toleration: a basic Prerequisite for Respecting and Understanding other’s Core Values JI Baocheng (紀寶成)

the United States that is most responsible for causing such difficulties concerning dialogue. As the dominant power, the United States possesses the greatest voice for action, and it is very important that it adjusts its mentality, changes its methods, lowers its lofty position, and becomes tolerant of disagreements. Practically speaking, out of those people in the United States who are skeptical about China’s road to development, resistant to China’s political operation, and who have a prejudice view of traditional Chinese culture, only a very few have “demonized” China or hold a truly hostile attitude. This high level of fear is largely related to a lack of toleration. Due to a lack of broad tolerance, it is very difficult to use a fair mindset when attempting to understand and accept cultures with different values. This issue will often exist when there is a lack of mutual understanding, and makes it very difficult to acknowledge and begin normal dialogues with a positive attitude. Under such circumstances, it is all the more urgent and important to understand and draw on the lessons of cultural tolerance which is advocated for in traditional Chinese culture and based on unity in diversity. Just as Laozi says, “great nations should take a modest and humble position to others”. Wang Bi interprets this as “all streams go to the great seas which lie in the lower reaches, all nations under heaven will pledge allegiance to the great nation that is modest and humble in conduct”. The core value of toleration is truly universally applicable and deserves the attention and inheritance of today’s most developed country, the U.S., and the current world’s largest developing country, China. This is a mutual responsibility given to us by history. We should positively face this issue and firmly progress forward. Professor FEI Xiaotong, a respected Chinese sociologist, once said that, “If people appreciate their own beauty as well as the beauty of others, and work together to create beauty in the world, all under Heaven will be in harmony”. I quite agree with his view; however, we should be cautious not to indulge in our own “wishful

thinking”. If we make efforts to help others “recognize their own beauty”, those persons, when only concerning him or herself with “his or her own beauty”, will also try to vilify those helping him or her. The world can never come to a “commonly shared beauty”. We should be wary never to lose ourselves in the practice of “toleration”, which does not mean selfentrapment. I sincerely wish that “toleration” can become a guiding principal found in the China-U.S dialogue and bilateral communications. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Are “Global Core Values” Possible? MITCHELL, Joshua

Are “Global Core Values” Possible? MITCHELL, Joshua Former President of Renmin University of China; Special Researcher of Counsellors’ Office of the State Council; Member of National Education Examination Steering Committee

re “global core values” possible? The question is animated by an as yet illdefined but palpable longing for unanimity that currently registers around the world, especially among cosmopolitan fellow-travelers and those who mediate between nations. While today’s clear-thinking cosmopolitan can provide a negative account of the parochialisms that are to be avoided, however, a positive account of what the overarching and inclusive “core values” might be has yet to be agreed on. In these brief remarks, I wish to draw attention to ideas from a few canonical authors from the Western tradition, in order to raise questions about: (1) the term by which that longing is named; (2) the sources of that longing; (3) the limitations to which mortal life is subject, which make the identification of “core values” unlikely; and (4) the sort of aspiration, short of global “core values,” we may likely find helpful. 1. The term, “values,” by which our longing is named. Let us start with the term, “values.” While today the term is used ubiquitously around the world to designate what we happen to deeply believe, its most prominent and incisive formulation is to be found in the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, whose withering late nineteenth-century attack on both the AngloAmerican world and on Christianity as a whole depended on a particular meaning of the term “value.” Worth pondering today is the extent to which the perspective that Nietzsche enjoined us to adopt lurks in our own use of the term.

In casual use, we often use the term, “value,” and the term, “preference,” interchangeably. Upon further reflection, however, we generally acknowledge that “values” are somehow deeper than mere “preferences”―and that deeper still lie “core values.” In Nietzsche’s work, especially in his Genealogy of Morals, we find the intellectual font of our intuition that man— or rather, the man who lives a creative life—is oriented by more than mere “preferences.” On Nietzsche’s view, only the Anglo-Americans, only those who believe that man can be understood in terms of market utility, have “preferences.” It was out of this pathos of distance that [noble souls] first seized the right to create values and to coin names for values: what had they to do with utility! The viewpoint of utility is as remote and inappropriate as it possibly could be in the face of such a burning eruption of the highest rank-ordering, rank-defining value judgments: for here feeling has attained the antithesis of that low degree of warmth which any calculating prudence, and calculus of utility, presupposes―and not just once, not for an exceptional hour, but for good. On Nietzsche’s reading, “preference” supposes a careful weighing and measuring among alternatives: “values” predate such alternatives, historically; and are superior to them, normatively. Only a certain sort of man wants the “happiness” that the moral vocabulary of “preference” presupposes: namely, an Englishman. The rest want creativity, passion, meaning, depth, self-sacrifice―in short, the sort of thing of which the calculus of “preference” knows nothing. Man truly lives through his

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Are “Global Core Values” Possible? MITCHELL, Joshua

“values.” So expressed, it would seem that “values” may comprehend religious experience, as a genus comprehends a species. Today, in fact, almost everywhere we look, we see people talking and writing about religious “values.” According to Nietzsche, however, the situation in which man now finds himself is one in which religion is no longer possible; for now, finally, man has learned to be honest with himself: Unconditional honest atheism (and it is the only air we breathe, we more spiritual men of this age!) is therefore not the antithesis of [the will to truth], as it appears to be; it is rather only one of the latest phases of its evolution, one of its terminal forms and inner consequences-it is the awe-inspiring catastrophe of two thousand years of training in truthfulness that finally forbids itself the lie involved in the belief in God. With religion now behind him, man is liberated and is called to begin anew, to create “values” ex nihilo, as it were. These alone attest to man’s greatness and dignity. The sooner man looks forward to creating values, rather than backward, with melancholy, to a God whose only trace is a moral code from which man continues to suffer, the sooner will man regain his health. The “values” that man creates are their own testament, need no further justification, and authorize themselves without reason. There is, therefore, no calculus that mediates between them. Man must simply opt, without transcendental reason, among them. There can be no “preference” here either, for “preference” presumes a calculus by which this can be compared to that. Having a “preference” for a “value” conflates two entirely different conceptual schemes, neither of which comprehends religious experience. In light of what has just been said, however, it is not too difficult to understand why religious experience has been more readily comprehended under the category of “value” than under the category of “preference.” “Value” involves an orientation; it is comprehensive and constitutive and pertains to man’s search

for meaning in a world that seems oblivious to that quest. As such, it has little in common with the always provisional calculus of “preference.” “Preference” answers to what is lower in man; “value” answers to what is higher. And since religion is among the higher things, “value” seems to be a term of equivalence with religious experience. But here, again, it would be a mistake to conflate the two. Nietzsche knew this; so, too, did Max Weber, who followed him. In a world in which God is now absent, what remains for man is that dignified possibility― difficult to achieve, to be sure―of having a coherent orientation towards a “value.” The fruit of the tree of knowledge, which is distasteful to the complacent, but which is, nonetheless, inescapable, consists in the insight that every single important activity and ultimately life as a whole, if it is not to be permitted to run on as an event in nature but instead be consciously guided, is a series of ultimate decisions through which the soul― as in Plato―chooses its own fate, that is, the meaning of its activity and existence. For both Nietzsche and Weber, religious experience cannot be a “value” because the term “value” supposes already the impossibility of religious experience. “Value” has as its correlative, “meaning.” Religious experience has as its correlative, God. The chasm between “value” and religious experience cannot be bridged by supposing the commensurability of “meaning” and religious experience. To speak of “religious values” is to speak incoherently, since a “value” is something that man has as his own. But religious experience reveals that man, truly, has nothing of his own, that God is the Author of all things, and that man’s relationship to the created world is that of steward, not owner. “Value” is affirmative with respect to man; religious experience is deferential with respect to God. Is it the case, we might ask, that our use of the term, “value,” is confused—not somewhat, but, in fact, fundamentally? Do we today invoke the term, “value,” on the one hand, sharing the presumption of Nietzsche’s that man, himself,

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Are “Global Core Values” Possible? MITCHELL, Joshua

creates the values that he has; and on the other hand, with a view to subsuming all that man holds dear, including religion, within the genus of “values”? The predominant opinion today is that there is no contradiction in holding both positions. Worth pondering, however, is whether we misunderstand religion by construing it as a “value.” And because there are a number of prominent religions among peoples around the globe, it is reasonable to ask whether the term, “values,” is fitting if what we are searching for is a term that allows us to arrive at a rough global consensus about man and his longings. 2. The sources of the longing for “global values.” Let us nevertheless set aside the problematic origin and meaning of the term, “value,” and ask: what are the sources of our longing for a rough global consensus? Perhaps the most immediate source of that longing is the judgment that national destinies can no longer be disentangled from a larger global destiny, that we are moving towards one world, in which once-primordial national units are becoming subordinate units. This judgment presupposes that the world is, in fact, a system, an integrated whole which requires that the parts be coordinated so that the whole may work at all. Two looming examples where this judgmemt prevails are to be found in our thinking about the earth’s environmental system and the global economic system. In both cases, however, it can plausibly be argued that no such comprehensive system exists at all—that what really exists, whether at the biological level of species or at the social level of entrepreneurs and corporations, is a plurality of conflicting wagers concerning the content of the future and the relationship between its parts. If Darwin and, say, Smith are our guides, then that must certainly be the conclusion. If this is so, if there is no comprehensive system, then the longing for “global core values” cannot find its root here. Might there be other sources of man’s longing for a comprehensive whole and, hence,

for “global core values.” Might those other sources, singly or in concert, in fact, better explain that longing, while at the same time suggest constraints on our aspiration for a comprehensive whole? Three accounts of that longing are worth considering: St. Augustine’s fifth century theological account; Plato’s fifth century B.C. philosophical account; and Alexis de Tocqueville’s nineteenth century sociological account. Let us turn to Augustine first. [In this book] I treat [the City of God] both as it exists in this world of time, a stranger among the ungodly, living by faith; and as it stands in the security of its everlasting seat. This security it now awaits in steadfast patience, until justice returns in judgment; but it is to attain it hereafter, in virtue of its ascendancy over its enemies, when the final victory won and peace established. The task is long and arduous; but God is our Helper. How, in the light of this passage, is man to understand himself in the world of time? Created ex nihilo, yet made in God’s image, called to worship God yet, by virtue of the fall of man, disposed to collapse into himself, man aspires to take in upon himself the Office of God: to heal the wounds and injustices in the world of time. Man, always a “problem to himself,” longs for a concord he himself cannot bring about. And he wants to bring it about now. Able to apprehend that his disparate yet unjust world is not enough, he is too broken to comprehend what the resolution of his problem may entail. More vexing still, the judgment he is likely to make concerning resolution seldom accords with the judgments others will make. In short, while man longs for more, in the world of time he is confronted by the unalterable fact of plurality. Nations―with all that that entails about the parochialism of both laws and “values”―will be with us until the end of time, “until justice returns in judgment.” In the interim, the man of faith lives with a view to the Heavenly City of which he is a citizen― but not at the expense of one or another of the worldly cities, distinguished by “customs, laws,

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Are “Global Core Values” Possible? MITCHELL, Joshua

and institutions,” of which he is also a member. In short, man is caught between a peaceful and unified creation he knows is his through God’s promise, in the future, and a turbulent, fractious and violent world he knows through the immediacy of his senses. While he may long for the one, he cannot escape the other. It may be objected that Augustine’s caution concerning the unanimity man may achieve in the world of time is but a single Christian formulation, that not only are there other Christian formulations, but also other nonChristian formulations. That is true. Consider, then, Plato, a philosopher of no mean stature. His magisterial work, The Republic, is about many things, not least this: where is man’s true home, and how is he to live both in the city of his birth and “the city set up in the heavens”? From its very first pages, The Republic wrestles with the age-old question of whether the inheritance of the fathers, broadly understood, is sufficient for the sons. At the most sublime moments in the dialogue, towards the end of Bk. VI and the beginning of Bk. VII, Plato suggests that the man whose soul is just must have turned away from the world of shadows and seen the light of the Good. Once seen, the conclusion becomes irresistible that it is the cause of all things right and good, that . . . . it is itself sovereign and the author of truth and reason, and that the man who will act wisely in private and public life must have seen it. To have seen the light of the Good is to have seen the true source of man’s generation; and to have seen that is to recognize that man is an orphan in his father’s home. This formulation, like Augustine’s, which it antedates by some nine hundred years, is hauntingly similar in its conclusion, even if not for the same reason: here, man dimly intimates that he is somehow homeless in this world below; and that his task is to make the journey Home. Yet on Plato’s account, absent the awakening of divine reason, man cannot see beyond the shadows which daily occupy him. So situated, the half-lit mind concludes that all things are relative, that there

is no truth. Unchanging Truth and luminous Beauty are too bright for this shadow-dweller to see. Hence, the great Platonic formulation: “only philosophy can save us.” Here alone is the basis for accord, for justice, for unanimity and consensus. Without philosophy, Plato says, we are more akin to animals that to human beings: Like cattle men graze, fatten, and copulate. Greed drives them to kick and butt one another with horns and hoofs of iron. Because they are insatiable, they slay one another. And they are insatiable because they neglect to seek real refreshment for that part of the soul that is real and pure. Let us now turn in a different direction, away from theology and philosophy, and towards sociology. Let us consider the work of Alexis de Tocqueville, and ask: what does he think the source of our longing for unanimity might be? It is not off the mark to read Tocqueville’s Democracy in America has an extended rumination on the sorts of ideas that seem to effortless arise in the mind of democratic man, and what antidotes are available to combat them. What distinguishes democratic man, above all, is that he is no longer bound, as was aristocratic man before him, by the ties of family and by the ties of history and tradition. Aristocracy links ever body, from peasant to king, in one long chain. Democracy breaks the chain and frees each link . . . . Thus, not only does democracy make men forget their ancestors, but also clouds their view of their descendants and isolates them from their contemporaries. Each man is forever thrown back on himself alone, and there is danger that he may be shut up in the solitude of his own heart. In this novel condition, democratic man is liberated both from the links that currently bind to others and to the links between the generations. As this occurs, Tocqueville thought, the mind imagines a fugitive perfection that aristocratic man cannot possibly conceive, a fugitive perfection according to which the

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Are “Global Core Values” Possible? MITCHELL, Joshua

historical inheritances that once held people fast need no longer obtain. To escape from imposed systems, the yoke of habit, family maxims, class prejudices, and to a certain extent national prejudices as well; to treat tradition as valuable for information only and accept existing facts as no more than a useful sketch to show how things could be done differently and better…..―such are the principal characteristics of what I would call the democratic philosophical method. From this self-evident fact in the democratic imagination arises the view that all things can be changed. The aristocratic soul, Tocqueville tells us, thinks not of “change,” but only of “amelioration.” It is worth noting that Tocqueville’s assessment of this democratic impulse was that it went too far; for man is, finally, a creature that also has a home, a family, a locale, a nation, a religion. The psychological dilemma of the democratic age, in one of its valences, is that democratic man can see beyond the immediacy of his horizon, even if he cannot quite grasp it. 3. The limitations to which mortal life is subject. Here we have arrived, now, at the third question I wish to pose: are their limits to which mortal life is subject, which preclude the achievement of “global core values”? The three thinkers I have only casually considered here believe, as I have already indicated, that such limits do exist, thought on different grounds. One of the great mysteries of life, for Augustine, stems from the inscrutability of the situation in which man finds himself. Thrown into a world he did not make, animated by forces he cannot fully understand, enticed by temptations he cannot escape, man’s lived experience makes parsimony with himself, and with others, wellnigh impossible. To ask for more is to ask for a degree of understanding and control that man simply does not have. Plato, too, recognized the limits set to mortal life—and found them mysterious as well. Man

as we find him suffers from a mortal sickness, but it is a sickness like pregnancy is a sickness. That is why in the Theaetetus, one of Plato’s Dialogues, Socrates calls himself a midwife. “At times,” he says, “I come across people who do not seem to me somehow to be pregnant. Then I realize they have no need of me.” The ones who have no need of the philosopher/midwife’s art are those who are content to live in their father’s home, so to speak—content to live out their lives with the parochial inheritance of the city. The great mystery is why some should give birth and awaken to Truth, Justice, and Beauty, while others should live a life of lingering death and then die. And because most will end their lives this way, there is little prospect that human history with be other that an endless succession of parochial claims, and of factional politics that masquerades as justice. Unlike Augustine and Plato, the limits set to mortal life in Tocqueville are sociologically understood. In the democratic age, man rightly intimates that he has been freed from the links that once held him fast, but from there conceives of the imprudent project of freeing himself from limits altogether, and creating himself wholly out of himself. Here we find the scourge of the democratic age: the soul that hovers over the world but never quite enters into it, whose engagement is, finally, virtual, and at a distance―or, for so many of our young people today, merely ironic. 4. The task at hand. My remarks thus far have deliberately pointed to the immense difficulty associated with the “global core values” project. Conceding in advance the difficulty, what, then, is possible? Here, I think two distinct alternatives emerge, one base and the other one noble. The base alternative is to set our sights lower, to aspire not to a consensus on “values,” but rather to the more short-lived and contingent consensus on “preferences,” or “interests.” Let us concede, with Nietzsche (mentioned earlier), that preferences are more superficial that values.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Are “Global Core Values” Possible? MITCHELL, Joshua

Nevertheless, we should be alert to the fact that by setting our sights lower, certain things can be accomplished that otherwise could not be. I may not share values with my neighbor, and that may be an obstacle to concord; but we may discover interests in common that allow us to work together. The nobler alternative, briefly, involves the recognition that somewhere between the unachievable ecumenical horizon that so many today long for, and a world of incommensurable civilizations that so many today fear, lies a third alternative—let us call it “comparative canonical inquiry.” Through this device we may begin a global conversation that neither starts from the pretense that there is a universal human discourse nor from a supposition that reifies civilizations or groups within them into sacrosanct and impervious “identities.” Beyond the blur of events, beyond the well-workedout oppositions on which political parties and sloganeers thrive, lies a third alternative, which seeks to return to the origins of all durable civilizations and trace their development through the great ideas that are registered in their respective canons. The crude beginnings of this enterprise are already taking shape; it is not impossible to imagine a day, moreover, when a new generation of scholars with a deep and reverential knowledge of their own inheritance sets itself the noble goal of placing before students around the globe the great ideas that have shaped civilizations—not in the form of taste-testing survey courses, which make all such ideas seem unpalatable, but in the form of an extended feast, which demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt why those ideas have nourished the minds and hearts of generation after generation. “Variety is disappearing from the human race,” Tocqueville writes, with alarm. I suspect that only something like comparative canonical inquiry can provide a foundation substantial enough for members of different civilizations to engage in the kinds of conversations that will be required if we are to greet each other under the banner of hospitality during the rest of this already troubled century,

and beyond. In this sort of inquiry, the world is recognized to be incontrovertibly plural. Through this sort of inquiry, we are alerted the differing categories of experience illuminated by and presumed in the different civilizational canons. By this sort of inquiry, I wager, scholars and public intellectuals can less make the world good, than contribute, perhaps, to making it less bad than it would otherwise be, through and in the sort of classroom that would be necessary to underwrite this new kind of learning. This is a modest goal, but also a noble one. A world such as ours today calls out for both. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Unpredictable or predicatable? - Globalisation, Cultralism and Confucian Values YAO Xinzhong (姚新中)

Unpredictable or Predicatable? - Globalisation, Cultralism and Confucian Values YAO Xinzhong (姚新中) Director of Lau China Institute, King’s College London; Dean of the School of Philosophy, Remin University of China

any people, inside and outside China, have said China is at a crossroads, facing choices about how to position itself in the world. David Shambaugh in his article ‘China: An Unpredictable Global Power’, for example, claims that ‘the nation itself is deeply confused about its international identity and roles it should play in the world’ (China Review, V.50, p2). The term ‘unpredictability’ may imply many different things, but as a label it serves as a misleading sign of uncertainty of China at present and in the future, in the eyes of the China observers. Reasonable it might be for a variety of reasons, it is only a shortsighted view of China. China’s future should be as predictable as its past was, if we do not view it merely from current politics and international entangling it is currently locked in with some of its neighbours; rather if we look at it in a long term and go deep from surface to the core values of the Chinese people. China’s future will be eventually determined by its cultural values and understanding these values is one of the necessary conditions to judge or assess China’s position in the international community. In a sense, cultural core values are like an ‘invisible hand’, implicitly determining the direction a country will move in and fundamentally shaping the cultural landscape of its people. ‘The invisible hand’ here is not meant what Adam Smith said ‘the selfregulating behavior of the free market’, but the

function and operation of cultural core values. Unlike political and economic values which are derived from people’s desires and driven by the satisfaction of these desires at a short period and for the particular purposes of a short term, cultural values are accumulated through hundreds of years of life experiences and cultural expectations. They are considered, explicitly or implicitly, the core of a certain way of life. Cultural values provide principles and standards for the people and also ‘draw’ roadmaps for them. Where are the cultural values and why should we say they are ‘invisible’? Cultural values are ‘invisible’ in comparison with other kinds of values, because they exist in the way of life, mostly hidden in our personality and mentality but as collective memories determining our cultural orientations and social preferences. Their operation is not as visible as political and economic values. However since they are deeper and subtler, they are more fundamental and lasting; their ‘operation’ is more comprehensive. Political and other forces may change the course of action for a while but eventually it is cultural values that decide politics; not the other way around. In a word, cultural values determine where we go and who we can be. Cultural values are more influential than particular ideologies. They provide backups when we lose our direction and they encourage us when we are not confident in ourselves. Their function can also go beyond geographical

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Unpredictable or predicatable? - Globalisation, Cultralism and Confucian Values YAO Xinzhong (姚新中)

and political boundaries of a particular ethnic people group and helps reshaping cultural preferences in a much wider community. Peter Nolan observes, ‘Many people in China hope and believe that its ancient civilisation can help ensure a globally sustainable future for all human beings’ (‘The End of Wild Capitalism’, China Review, 50, p12). But he does not point out where this hope or belief comes from. As a matter of fact, the hope and belief come from the cultural values of the Chinese people. The basic cultural values of China was initially formulated by Confucius and expanded by generations of peoples of the same or similar mind within and without China. Chinese cultural values are multifaceted and multilayered. As far as China’s relation to the world is concerned, the core of Confucian values is ‘being harmonious but not identical’ (he er bu tong和而不同); it is by this core value that we are confident that China’s future should be predictable. Determined by this core value, it is unlikely that China and the Chinese people seek to impose their will on others and to occupy the land of other nations; because of this core value they will surely strive for a harmonious world, but at the same time ensure that they are able to keep their own cultural characteristics and that all nations and states are able to maintain or keep their own cultural identities. Coming back to the crossroads I mentioned at the beginning. China is currently pushed by two great forces. On the one hand globalisation is pulling China into the world community more powerfully than ever before. Majority of the Chinese see globalisation as an opportunity rather than a threat. China tops the table of the Ipsos Mori survey (2011) of the attitudes towards globalisation with over 90% of the Chinese agreeing that ‘globalisation is a good thing for my country’. The Chinese are both the beneficiary and the enthusiastic practitioners of globalisation (for example, the recently opened experimental Shanghai Free Trade Zone). Social scientists always try to make connections between people’s attitudes towards globalisation and the economic benefits they have gained

from globalisation. Of course only when people see the benefits they would wholeheartedly embrace globalisation. But at the same time we must see that going global is embedded in the mentality of the Chinese and is driven by their cultural values; these values determine that the Chinese are, more than other nations, longing for a much more closely interconnected world. The impact of globalisation on China has also gone well beyond economy. It has or starts having a huge impact on all other aspects of Chinese society and Chinese life. ‘Keeping up with the international standards’ (yuguojijiegui與國際接軌) has not only been accepted as a norm in economy, finance, business, law enforcing, management and education, but also is being accepted in a much wider social and cultural sphere. If this trend continues, China will soon play a bigger role in the integration of the world and in helping reshaping the current world order. This trend and desire comes from the cherished value of ‘being harmonious’. Along with the growth of economic power, the Chinese are also more assertive in their own preferences. In a sense, China is becoming more entrenched in a ‘cultural conservatism’ looking back to its own past to rebuild cultural confidence and identity. This so-called ‘cultural conservatism’ is sometime branded as nationalism. ‘Nationalism’ as a social mode is increasingly influencing how China sees itself and how China deals with other cultures and nations. This is, at least partially, driven by the operation of the value of ‘not identical’. However, we must not forget, ‘nationalism’ in the modern era was a product of social Darwinism and was borrowed by revolutionary leaders such as Sun Yat-sen or thinkers such as Liang Qichao to enable a rich, strong and confident China. To a certain extent a well defined ‘nationalism’ was and is a good thing for China, enabling China to keep its own characteristics while being part of the world. However, when going beyond this extent, it may well damage China’s long term interest and can push China into an extreme with emotional xenophobia, which is fundamentally against the core value of ‘being

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Unpredictable or predicatable? - Globalisation, Cultralism and Confucian Values YAO Xinzhong (姚新中)

harmonious’. As many have rightly pointed out, how to balance the two forces, globalisation and nationalism, will be crucial for China to be a major global power. I would argue that the right way of balancing these two forces is through a process of accommodating globalisation to culturalism (by ‘culturalism’ I mean individuals as well as nations/countries are determined by their culture, not vice visa). Much debate is already made in terms of ‘nation-state’ vs. ‘civilisation-state’. The concept of China as a civilisation-state is applied in order to reject the hegemony paradigm of China and to place an emphasis on China’s embracing ability when dealing with other cultures and nations. If we can successfully combine globalisation and culturalism into one force, the increasing economic strength would unlikely make China another hegemony superpower. If we allow the two sides of the Confucian core value, ‘being harmonious but not identical’, to function properly, China will be able to fully balance the two forces, globalisation and nationalism, and be both a culturally confident country and a fully globalised state. For me, this is the real meaning of globalisation. The possibility of the combination is also rooted in Confucian values. Confucius was a keen cultural builder and saw himself as the legitimate transmitter and preserver of the cultural tradition (si wen斯文). However, he was not an isolationist; rather he could be seen as the first enthusiastic globalist in China: he travelled to many different states to propagate his political-ethical-educational designs and visions, and did not mind going to places which were commonly at that time regarded as ‘barbarian’. He even claimed to ‘get upon a raft and float out to sea,’ which implies that he wanted to boldly explore the totally unknown world. (Lunyu 5:7) Of course the world (Tianxia天下) of Confucius was much smaller by today’s standards. The so-called ‘globalisation’ Confucius had in mind was at best the initial stage of the ‘long globalisation’. The barriers

preventing communication and interaction between different ‘states’ as we know today did not exist. Nevertheless the legacy that Confucius was able to be both a cultural builder and an open mind ‘globalist’ is the best example of how ‘being harmonious but not identical’ could be applied beyond personal relations. This core value has shaped the Chinese understanding of, and attitude to, the relation between ‘China’ and the rest of the world. As a world order paradigm it pushes for a harmonious world while preserving not only one’s own cultural preferences but also the multiple identities of diverse cultures. Standing in opposition to this core value are those whom we may rightly call ‘cultural isolationists’, ‘cultural mergers’, or ‘cultural conquerors’. ‘Not identical’ is not easy to achieve. In face of powerful external cultural forces one has to be brave and to resist, in order not to be totally merged or to simply surrender. But ‘keeping one’s own character’ is only part of the core value. Harmonisation requires much more than allowing different people and different states to preserve their one’s own cultures. Subjectively each state must treat others equally and ‘tolerate’ them not because they are ‘inferior’ but simply because they are ‘not identical’. Objectively,between different states are firmly established interdependent relations, for which there must be a commonly agreed set of principles that guide all states. The set of agreed principles, in a Confucian context, is collectively called Dao the Way. Confucian masters believed, wishfully, that the Way alone is the guarantee of peace and harmony (‘One who has the Way would have many to support him; one who has not the Way will have few to support him’ (Mencius, 4:1). Naïve as they might have been, being harmonious does reply on all people abiding by certain principles or standards which are already agreed with. To apply what Confucians wished to achieve in today’s world, I would say that we need urgently to establish the Way of ‘cultural globalisation’ which drives intercommunication between different cultures and values and at

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Unpredictable or predicatable? - Globalisation, Cultralism and Confucian Values YAO Xinzhong (姚新中)

the same time allows them each a distinctive cultural character. Cultural globalisation will help realise what Confucians have dreamed for thousands of years, ‘The Great Way prevails’ (dadao zhi xing 大道之行and ‘the World is for all the peoples’ (Tianxia wei gong天下為公). The former is the foundation while the latter is its realisation. True globalisation can be achieved only through interacting cultural forces rather than by military or economic powers. To have lasting and beneficial globalisation, it is necessary for all the peoples to abide by the core value of ‘being harmonious but not identical’. If this core value is fully followed, then not only China but the whole world will be as predictable as the sun will surely rise in the morning and set in the evening. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Something America and China Could Do Together FULLER, Robert W.

Something America and China Could Do Together FULLER, Robert W. Former President, Oberlin College, “Citizen-Diplomat”

he greatest threats to China and America come not from each other, but from inadequacies in their own systems of governance. Chinese and Americans alike are burdened by political systems that are not up to the trials of the twenty-first century. Foreseeable challenges include: (1) managing national aspirations in a global setting; (2) creating new jobs for people displaced by improvements in agriculture and technology; (3) reversing environmental degradation; (4) managing paradigm-shattering advances in artificial intelligence that are forcing human beings to reconceive selfhood. In the spirit of trial-and-error, why couldn’t the two giants conduct experiments designed to discover forms of decision-making that are better suited to dealing with the technological, environmental, and political challenges that we face? Each nation would draw on its own traditions and borrow from the other’s. As the Sino-U.S. Colloquia on Core Values and World Order have amply shown, the political philosophies of Confucius, Mo Zi, Lao Tzu, and Huang Zongxi complement and enrich the political philosophies of Hume, Locke, and Jefferson. For example, Confucius taught that a harmonious relationship is one in which both partners take care to protect each other’s dignity. To affirm dignity is to confirm belonging and grant a voice in decision-making while disallowing exclusion, paternalism, and coercion. Dignity is a universal desire, not something liberals favor and conservatives oppose, or vice

versa. So, too, every faith and every political system supports equal dignity in principle, if not in practice. This suggests that instead of choosing between libertarian and egalitarian models of governance, we should seek a dignitarian synthesis that incorporates both Jeffersonian and Confucian principles. Though he didn’t call it dignitarian governance, Confucius was one of its earliest advocates. Confucianism argues that rulers should be chosen on the basis of merit, not entitlement, and that the governing class is not above the law but rather honor-bound to serve not their own but the people’s interests. Interpreted in today’s language, good governance means honoring legitimate rank, but abjuring rankism—abuse of the power inherent in rank. Dignitarian governance— be it academic, corporate, or civic—rests on precisely that distinction. Rankism, not rank, is the source of indignity, so by barring rankism, dignity is secured. Though many subspecies of rankism— corruption, cronyism, favoritism, predatory lending, insider trading—are unlawful, these laws are nowhere consistently enforced. Western democracies, which emphasize individual liberty, cannot ignore the fact that many of today’s issues are too complex to be settled at the ballot box. “One person-one vote” style democracy may have been up to the tasks of governance in an agrarian age, perhaps even in an industrial age, but it is no match for the intricacies and perils of hi-tech, knowledgebased societies. It can be argued that humankind has come

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Something America and China Could Do Together FULLER, Robert W.

this far only because science was in its infancy and we lacked the means to destroy life on Earth. But now avoiding irreversible damage to the planet and to each other is too important to leave to autocrats, ideologues, or amateurs. Society pays a steep price when its leaders learn on the job, much as it does for on-the-job training in business, education, and medicine. But there’s the rub. Wherever accountability is weak, rulers may be tempted to use the power of their office not to serve others but to strengthen their own hold on power, if not to enrich themselves. Put the other way round, any model of governance that would substitute expertise for popular elections must have a solution to the age-old conundrum of holding accountable those to whom authority is entrusted. Be the “experts” Confucian sages, Platonic philosopher kings, or highly trained professionals, the burden of proof is on those who would dismiss the warning implicit in William Buckley, Jr.’s remark: “I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” Dignitarian governance offers an alternative to traditional democracy by providing accountability through layers of governing bodies comprised of a fine-tuned mix of professionals and representatives chosen by those who have a stake in the decisions of those bodies. Take academic institutions as an example. In the university, dignitarian governance means that students, staff, faculty, alumni, administrators, and trustees all have a voice and a share of the votes. Votes on policies affecting distinct aspects of academic life are apportioned according to the responsibility that constituencies bear for those aspects. Thus, the faculty holds a majority of votes on educational policy, students hold the majority on issues of student life, and administrators hold a majority, but not a monopoly, on budgetary issues. Trustees, in consultation with the

other constituencies, periodically choose new leadership for the institution, and hold fiduciary responsibility, but they delegate day-to-day internal governance to faculty, students, and staff. Many of the issues facing our globalized hitech world call for technical solutions, not political compromises. It would be naïve to suggest that effective mechanisms of accountability already exist, but it’s not too soon to begin designing and testing alternatives to find ones that work. Much experimentation will be needed to learn how to apportion votes among stakeholders so as to optimize the overall quality of decisionmaking while ensuring accountability. We could begin in education and healthcare, and then apply what we learn in those areas to management and business. As we gain confidence in the capacity of dignitarian models to bring more knowledge to bear on decisionmaking while strengthening accountability, we can introduce dignitarian principles into civic affairs, first in municipal government and then at the state, regional, national, and the global level. Democratic governance developed through a process of trial and error, and so will dignitarian governance. But we must begin because the only way to create and maintain the global harmony that will protect us from self-destruction is to create forms of self-governance that ensure dignity for everyone. Both China and America have traditions and institutions that hold vital lessons for modernizing decision-making. While it is admittedly a stretch to imagine either nation undertaking fundamental governmental reforms in the near term, it’s not so hard to imagine them collaborating on the design and testing of new governance models for apolitical institutions. As for our global future, what could be more auspicious than China and America working in partnership to invent governance tailored to manage the challenges of the twentyfirst century?

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Something America and China Could Do Together FULLER, Robert W.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Multiple Universalities in the Era of Globalization CHEN Lai (陳來)

East-West Encounters Differences and Commonalities in Core Values The Multiple Universalities in the Era of Globalization CHEN Lai (陳來)

Harmony as a Principle of World Culture YANG Guorong (楊國榮)

From China’s History to her Legal System ROOSEVELT-WELD, Susan

The New Cultural Landscape in International Relations YUAN Ming (袁明)

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Multiple Universalities in the Era of Globalization CHEN Lai (陳來)

The Multiple Universalities in the Era of Globalization CHEN Lai (陳來) Dean, Academy of Chinese Learning (Guoxue), Tsinghua University

n the work Guoyu (Discourse of States), Zhengyu, 《國語•鄭語》 a scholar in the Spring and Autumn Period stated that “uniformity cannot lead to sustainable growth, while the mediation of divergent elements can be generative”(夫和實生物，同則不繼。). This thought believes that the reconciliation of different matter is the basis for the creation of new objects, while the mere adding or mediation of identical objects can hardly generate anything new. In this sense, the existence of something ‘other’ is a prerequisite for the generation of the ‘new’. For example, it is believed that the ‘five elements’ are the most basic elements or materials. All things are made by the combination of nonidentical elements or material (five elements); which exists in the principle of “harmony without uniformity”. This opposes the concept of uniformity. The belief that diversity is the foundation of prosperity is true wisdom and emphasizes the concept’s vast superiority over uniformity through cooperation between diverse elements, compromise, balance, and harmony, and believes that uniformity only serves at stymieing creation. In Zuo Zhuan Chronicle of Zuo(《左傳》), the latter Spring and Autumn period writer, Yanying, in the 20th year of Duke Zhao stated that in regards to “harmony” that “no one would take the adding of water as something edible, nor can anyone, through listening, distinguish the difference between a lyre and a harp. This holds true to anything of a similar or uniform nature”(若以水濟水，誰能食之？若琴瑟之專一，誰能聽之？同之不可也如是。). Only through

the mediation and fusion of different elements can prosperity and new elements be created. The prerequisite for the creation of objects is the existence of variety, distinctiveness, and ‘other’; the root of all life is the mediation of the diverse and the distinctive. This kind of dialectic logic was developed before Confucius and has become an innate Chinese philosophical resource, which advocates for the idea of diversity to be applied in fields such as politics, society, and the generation of the cosmos. The meaning of harmony found in “he” began to be developed in the early stages of Chinese civilization. According to the Book of Shun Book of Documents, Emperor Shun required the musicians to use music and poetry to achieve “eight separate musical sounds, so that no one shall take or interfere with another, and to reach a state of harmony between man and heaven”. This illustrates that ancient man already understood the harmonizing effects of music, and hoped that harmony through music could allow a harmonious relation between man and the divine. This kind of thought was inherited by man in the Spring and Autumn period, and advocated utilizing every kind of harmonious musical sound, and the extension of harmony beyond humanity to “harmony between man and the divine” (Guo Yu Latter Zhou Yu). This illustrated the longing for universal harmony from early Chinese wise men. Ancient Chinese repeatedly used the harmony of vocal music as a metaphor for the harmony that exists between every object, which became a universal pursuit. Ancient Chinese utilized the harmony of music as a relationship model in matters between

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Multiple Universalities in the Era of Globalization CHEN Lai (陳來)

man, man and society, between ethnic groups, and man and heaven. The pursuit for harmony became a universal ideal for Chinese cultural ideas and forged the mindset of the Chinese civilization, values, and aesthetical appeal. The notion of harmony also had great influence on Confucius who continued to place great importance on Western Zhou music; he also advocated that the function of music existed in harmony, and believed that that the spirit of harmony revealed through music could promote and enhance the effect of ritual practice. In the The Book of Rites On Music, the disciples of Confucius state that “music is the harmony of the universe, while rites are the order of the universe. Everything is united in harmony while maintaining their different respective orders”. This clearly reveals that the harmony of humanity lies fundamentally in harmony between heaven and earth, that is to say, harmony in nature. The principle of the creation of everything is harmony, without harmony there is no metaplasia, while the actualization of harmony has profound cosmic origins. In the Book of Rites Doctorine of the Mean, the grandson of Confucius, Zisi, mentions that the “doctrine of the mean is the basic principle of the universe, while harmony is the supreme state of the universe. In harmony and balance everything will find its proper place and grow”. The mean is the principle of the middle path and balance, mediation is the principle of harmony, while balance and harmony not only possess meaning for humanity, but even more so the principle of universal law, universal oneness between man and the universe, and adherence to harmony and balance. The result of which is not only prosperity for human society, but also the necessary promotion of universal development and order. This is truly the embodiment of correlative thinking. The pursuit of perpetual harmony has become the long lasting standard for the treatment of the outside world by the Chinese civilization. According to the Book of Documents Cannon of Yao, “Yao made the able and virtuous distinguished, and thence proceeded to the love

of (all in) the nine classes of his kindred, who (thus) became harmonious. He (also) regulated and polished the people (of his domain), who all became brightly intelligent. (Finally), he united and harmonized the myriad states”. The principle of “uniting and harmonizing the myriad states” gradually evolved into the civilization of China’s model for world view. A similar saying includes “keep peace with the myriad states, govern all officials, and to unite all citizens” (Rites of Zhou).Confucius had long adopted the principle of mediation in communications with the external world, “if we adopt a conciliation policy and preferential treatment towards tribes near and far, then they may pledge allegiance to our king, whose rule can be strengthened” (Zuo Zhuan). The Book of Changes says, “the masculine elements bring forth new genesis while the positioning of a wise king can bring peace to all countries”. These sayings accord with the vision of harmonizing all countries; worldwide peace, and have been the persistent ideals of the Chinese civilization over the centuries. Prior to the Han Dynasty, due to limited exchange, multiple civilizations, and no single world center, China still could not define a clear unified world outlook. However, because of exchange between the Indian and Chinese civilizations, after the Wei and Jin period, and the eastward spread of Buddhism, the Chinese culture did not only absorb Buddhism, but China also became clearly aware that other advanced civilizations existed outside of China, and even that a few parts of these civilizations were more advanced than the Chinese civilization. This caused China to develop a diverse view of civilization, thus the exchange between the Chinese and Indian civilizations has been consistently fair. Due to the introduction and development of Buddhism in China, for the most part every Chinese dynasty has supported three religions (Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism), later, thought in China made popular the slogan, “unite the three streams”, expressing that different religions contained the potential for mutual integration. This thought

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Multiple Universalities in the Era of Globalization CHEN Lai (陳來)

made it impossible for religious wars to break out between China and the exterior world. The tradition of varied civilization and diverse religious integration was encapsulated in ancient China’s cultural practice of “harmony in diversity”, and has been, since at least the Tang dynasty, the most important resource for the handling of religion and culture. This illustrates that the Chinese cultural pursuit of harmony has been predicated on diversity, coexistence, and reciprocity. Pluralistic Universality of Values Globalization has provided new opportunities for Eastern civilizations and has basically altered the 300 year imbalance between the East and the West. Thus we can’t view globalism as an external process but should actively choose, participate in, and change practice. This also concerns the issue of cultural identification, which in China, has always been related to the struggle between the East and the West and the ancient and the modern. As to various issues concerning the East and the West and the ancient and the modern, the discussion of globalization and modernization are somewhat similar, but differ a bit in method and perspective. During the enlightenment movement, around China’s early modern period, this conflict was between the East and West. The theory of modernization states that it is between tradition and modernity, while the discourse on globalism states that conflict is between the global and the regional. The fundamental question underlying all these is how to deal with the fate of tradition, how should tradition be dealt with, and cultural identification in the age of modernity. Regional tradition here does not refer to small local tribal regions, as is often pointed to by anthropologists, but to non-Western cultural traditions, such as the Indian civilization, Chinese civilization, and the Arabic civilization. It can be said that globalism has already revealed a trend of making this problem even more intense which civilization has economic, cultural, and political strength to overshadow the creations of other cultures and civilizations.

In addition, since economic globalization is said to be the most convincing, in this sense, globalization is prominently still the instrumental rational for global development, and thus issues encountered in globalism and modernization are the same, for example, the issue of imbalance between instrumental rational and value rational. German politician Schmitt points out that the lack of globalization leads to moral decline, something that demands attention. Speaking from a philosophical point of view, if a thing or an element is globalized in the process of history, this reveals that this thing or element itself possesses universal traits and that this trait achieved realization of the external. Since early time, modernization has historically manifested itself with Western characteristics. From a theoretical point of view, scholars from Weber to Parsons regarded Western culture as universalistic, while they regarded Eastern culture as particularistic. That is to say, only when there is Western culture and values is there universalism, while Eastern culture and values are particularistic and cannot lend itself to universalization. Hence the relationship between Eastern and Western values creates an antithesis made up of “universalism” and “particularism”. This concept is utilized in globalization by taking the “West” and moving it towards global “transformation”, in order to realize globalization. Here the discussion of globalization and the discussion of modernization link together. Modernization requires the transition from the ancient to the modern and speaks of the moving from the past to the current and the conflict that exist between these periods, while globalization requires the universally applicable and speaks in special matters - the conflict between the East and the West. Modernization theorists in the 1960s highlighted the antagonism between “tradition and modernity” and wanted post developing countries and regions to abandon their traditional cultural values and embrace modernization, while globalists in the 1990s emphasized the opposition between

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Multiple Universalities in the Era of Globalization CHEN Lai (陳來)

“regional and global” and wanted to use globalism to override regionalism. Obviously from the perspective of modernization and globalization, the issue of ancient and modern and the issue of East and West have always been centrally an issue of culture. From the position of Confucianism, in relation to the theory of modernization, Confucianism emphasizes the wisdom of the ancient period and still possesses modern application. In reference to globalization, Confucianism emphasizes cultural tradition, especially the universal and perpetual values of non-Western culture, the most emphasized being the temporal and the spatial. When borrowing the concept of regionalism, one must observe that, no matter what kind of industrial and technological age humankind lives in, humanity’s most direct order of life is regionally based. Outside of modernization, human beings require a moral and spiritual life and spiritual discourse; while regional culture is responsible for moral order and religious beliefs. Through the ages there has never been and will never be one religion that can replace every regional religious belief or become the planet’s single common religion. A pluralistic moral and religious systems is a global reality, which is very unlikely to change, even in the coming hundred years. On the other hand, local culture is also universal and can be universalized. As a case in point, Buddhism belongs to the world’s religions, but still maintains distinct local features. This also holds true for Confucianism. It is obvious that globalism and regionalism cannot be completely divided into two separate parts but that they are mutually permeating. As a matter of fact, be it Buddhism or Confucianism, they both have long ceased to be purely regional in nature; and both have not ceased in spreading where potential for expansion exists, while they both originally achieved universalism first in the Near-East, and achieved worldwide expansion in the modern era. Such increasing transmission itself illustrates the universal nature of both Buddhism and Confucianism and that they

both possess universal meaning. Hence the notion of pluralistic universality should be established. American sociologist Roland Robertson argues in Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture that the particularization of universalism and the universalization of particularism are two mutually beneficial processes.. The particularization of universalism refers to what we often call the combination of “universal truth and specific regional realities”. Universalism refers to modern economics, political institutions, management systems, and basic values initially developed by the West. This phenomenon can be referred to as “rationalistic globalism”. Universalization of particularism refers to the increasing global identification of particular values. So long as various ethnical communities or regional communities choose to abandon all specific forms of essentialism and integrate openly into the globalization process, the ethnic community’s culture or the regional community’s knowledge can also acquire global and universal significance. This is referred to as “local universalism.” Robertson’s view is indeed interesting; but it fails to sufficiently acknowledge the universal significance of Eastern civilization. In our view, such universalism and particularization only differs in span of time. The West made itself the universal model rather early, while the East has still been in the early stage of realizing the universalization of its own regionalism; while the value of internal spiritual external universalism has nothing to do with determining the degree of external realization. In our view, both Eastern and Western spiritual culture and values possess internal universality. This can be referred to as “internal universality“. Whether such internal universality can be actualized depends on many external and historical conditions; thus that which is realized can be referred to as “actualized universalism.” In this way it should be stated that in reference to the spiritual and values, both Eastern and Western civilizations possess universalism and both are universalistic, though they differ from

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Multiple Universalities in the Era of Globalization CHEN Lai (陳來)

each other and the historical degree and period of actualizing differ. This is the definition of pluralistic universalism. Justice, freedom, human rights and rational individualism are universal values, as are compassion, equality, obligation, sympathy and community.This is all revealed in Liang Suming’s early work, Easternwestern Culture and their Philosophy. Today, only by establishing the concept of pluralistic universalism in globalism can we make the world’s cultural aspects relative and equal to each other. In this sense, during the initial stage of globalization, if cultural transformation is characterized by western characteristics, then during the second stage the West return to the West which allows Western and Eastern culture to find their own relative positions. In this light, in regards to the Western’s pluralistic position which places importance on “politics of recognition”. In the relationship between globalism and culture, we attach emphasis on “culture of recognition”, which recognizes the pluralistic and universal nature of culture and civilization. These principles are utilized when dealing with relationships between different cultures and civilizations. Such a position is a natural position of cultural pluralism, which advocates for the decentralizing and the multiplying of global cultural centers. Philosophically speaking, it has been constantly recognized that universalism is one-dimensional, while pluralism means particularism. However, plurality does not necessarily mean particularistic. Whether and how pluralistic universalism is possible should be on the philosophical agenda of the contemporary thinkers in the age of globalization. Globalism has already allowed the whole world to enhance its mutual relations in areas of economy, technology, markets, finance and trade; despite such strengthening, humanity’s situation has not changed for the better. Regional warfare did not come to an end after the Cold War. Western intervention plunged the Balkans, Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan into chaos. The wave of globalism has not narrowed the South-

North gap, while developing countries obtained not only opportunities but also faced calamities from globalism. The construction of global or regional communities, though urgent, is faced with many difficulties. America’s financial tsunami exposed the internal crisis of market-oriented capitalism, while the European financial crisis has become even more severe and has caused the over-all crisis to become even worse. Facing these issues has caused us to believe that relying purely on modern western values such as, liberty, democracy, law, rights, markets, and individualism to handle these issues is impossible. We must expand our pursuits, including the rediscovering of East Asian values, world views, and draw upon ethics of mutual dependency as well as moral awareness of rites, to better our less than satisfactory world. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Harmony as a Principle of World Culture YANG Guorong (楊國榮)

Harmony as a Principle of World Culture YANG Guorong (楊國榮) Director, The Modern Chinese Thought and Culture Institute, East China Normal University

n our era, the human society seems undergoing a significant change. The scope of human practice goes more and more beyond the localization in different sense; though the various conflicts never disappear in this world, yet it is evident that the connection in human community becomes much closer than it used to be. This tendency, no doubt, makes it possible to investigate the human situation as a whole. How to create an appropriate condition in which all people can develop their inhere potentiality and demonstrate their internal values as human beings in the age of globalization? This is a crucial issue that confronts us. Here I would like making a couple of points from the perspective of Chinese values view. As implied above, when observing the world today, we can notice an unique phenomena which is with double sides: on the one hand, certain kind similarity in human life seems to become more and more obvious: from economic activity to aesthetic taste, from political strategy to the style of daily life, it is easy to find something in common; on the other hand, different cultural traditions not only still exist but also continue to exert their influence on various areas. What this phenomenon highlights is the issue of relation between plurality and the universality. It is no doubt that global society needs universal value principles to secure the justice, democracy, freedom, and so forth. However, it does not mean that we can ignore the diversity and plurality of cultures. In the history of civilization, different nations create multiple cultures, which, as the common treasure of mankind, also constitutes the

necessary resources for further development of civilization. Here we need distinguish harmony from sameness, this distinction has noticed and emphasized by Chinese philosophy for long time. Sameness imply the exclusive, which will eventually lead to empty and abstract state of being, while harmony entails the tolerance to plurality, and consequently endows culture with both rich sources and the characteristic of actuality. As mentioned earlier, human society today has gone beyond the localization; mankind acquire real possibility to develop world culture in substantial sense, which will be rested on not single tradition or value system, but the interaction among various cultural resources. Associated with the harmony, we are confronted with the relationship between identity and recognition. Identity here means to accept and conform to the universal value principles, which is indispensable for rational global society; recognition means，in turn, to recognize the value and significance of manifold cultural tradition. The former can be understood as a demand to particular nation or cultural tradition, while the later to international community or international society. For individual or particular cultural tradition, the key issue is to identify with universal value system, and avoid isolating with the common trend of world culture. For global society, the essential problem is，in turn，to disclose and respect for the value of different nations and cultures. Taking philosophy，which can be seen as the central part of culture, as example. There

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Harmony as a Principle of World Culture YANG Guorong (楊國榮)

are various philosophical traditions in history; among them the most significant division, of course, are Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy. In the pretty long historical period, those traditions develop almost independently, with no substantial influence upon each other. However, in the age of globalization, responding to the emerging of world culture, philosophy itself also need to go beyond single line. In the long time before, it is hard for philosophers with different tradition to know with each other; fortunately, this situation has totally changed now: History has let different philosophical traditions disclose themselves to others, and consequently make it possible for philosophers with various cultural background to learn from each other. In other words, history has provided us with both necessity and possibility to deepen and broaden philosophy by examining and employing multiple philosophical resources. What this tendency leads to is, in the profound sense, the world philosophy, which will be oriented, at the same time, toward the fusion of multiple philosophical tradition. It, of course, will be undergoing a long historical process, but now we can at least see the beginning of this journal. 2 The possibility to create world culture based on various resource reveals, in some extent, certain social hope. People in every historical stage have their own dreams or hopes, and it is same in our age. This is probably one of the reasons why philosophers, likes Bloch, Rorty, even the people in China today talk a lot about the hope. Dream or hope contains various aspects. On the metaphysical level, hope roots in possibility of the world: It is possibility that constitute the ontological ground of hope; on social cultural level, hope takes social ideal as its contents, which points at the better human life in the politic field, economic area , ethical sphere and so forth; on the dimension of time, hope leads to the future, which means go

beyond the current or present situation. Viewed from history, modernization often accompanies with or go towards secularization. One of the features of secular society is staying away from ultimate concern, and satisfied，more or less，with the situation or condition that have already existed. On the contrary, hope gives people dynamic horizon as well as the future orientation. For human being, there would be no future if there were no hope. In this sense, hope seems to serve as both the guiders and the drives: It is the guider, since it show people the aim and goal and lead them towards there; it is the drive, since it push people improving their life condition. Surely, hope alone cannot change the world. To turn hope into reality, we need pay attention to social practice as well. Philosophically, when a human being begins to examine a thing, the following questions will always be asked: “What is it?” “What does it mean?” and “What should it be?” The first question mainly concerns the features of the thing; the second, its meaning to the human being; and the third, the necessity and way to realize such a meaning. Both the last two questions relate particularly to the issue of value and practice. The practical dimension of humans’ relationship to the world is well expressed in the understanding of Dao in Chinese philosophy. On the one hand, Dao could be understood as laws of the world and hence represents the features of “beings-inthemselves.” On the other hand, Dao could also be seen as the way of beings, namely, the way being relates to humans and hence represents “things-for-us” since the way of being involves not only the being of the object but also the being of humans. In other words, the Dao implies both “isness” and “oughtness”, and the later point to the practice of changing and improving the world. When we consider how to turn the hope into reality, this perspective is no doubt worthy of notice. In brief, related with existence of human beings, the world in which we now live is faced with various issues which must be consider and resolved, and we need social hope to remind

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Harmony as a Principle of World Culture YANG Guorong (楊國榮)

of us not simply confining ourselves to certain social condition, while the dimension of practice demand further to transmit hope into reality. The human society will lost its internal drive and guider to create better world without hope. However, if we merely hold certain hope, then we may only wait for something passively, and it will be become pure utopian without various social practice. The more reasonable approach here is to unify the social hope and social practice. In the broad sense，the establishment of world culture involves both individual area and public space, the latter two, in turn, are embodied in private sphere and public one. Generally speaking, from the very beginning, the life of human being has manifest its double meaning in these two dimensions, which essentially did not separate from each other. When we observe the human life in the emerging age of globalization, both sides need be taken into consideration. From the public perspective, the issue firstly involves the various social institutions. It is no doubt that to create a democratic, just, and liberal society, we need highlight the political organization, legal system, economic order, public space, and so on. Modern society has established manifold institutions, organizations, as well as the common space of communication among people, which, in certain sense, secure the social order from one aspect. Associated with division of labor, there are different interest group and various social relationships in society; it is almost impossible to attain social solidarity and avoid social conflict without necessary social institutions. However, what institutions embody is mostly the impersonal forms and procedure, in other words, it mainly manifests the external structure of society. If we focus merely on this side, we will apparently fail to catch the whole picture of human life. It is true that each person is being with others, and it is equally true that as concrete being, each person has his own individual and internal world. Historically, Chinese philosophers make much profound

investigation of individual meaning horizon or spiritual state, which are with particular significance to person. Individual meaning horizon or spiritual world contain the personal understanding to the world, self-confirmation to the value of existence, and awareness to the ideal of life. What this horizon or state displays is the whole being of person, which not only confine itself to the sphere of mind, but also demonstrate itself in actual process of practice. In the every day life, the meaning horizon or spiritual state provide people with particular significance of the world; in the moral sphere, this state exist as authentic virtue, which makes it possible to turn knowing what is good into practicing goodness, and consequently bridge the gap between knowing and doing. Different from political, legal and economic institution, which first of all connect with the public area, the internal world, which contains particular meaning and significance for individual, mainly point at private sphere; both of them are indispensable for concrete and positive life of human being. However, as Rorty has noticed, contemporary philosophers often merely emphasize one of them. For instance, philosophers like Rowels and Harbamas are, in some extent, exclusively focus on the public sphere, while these like Heidgger and Derida, on the contrary, concentrate firstly upon private one. In these kinds approaches, the human life and human society seem lost their concrete feature, and appear merely as one-sided state. As matter of fact, public sphere and private area, social justice and individual spiritual world are equally important for human life. In the process towards global society, we need to concern for social justice and social order, and similarly, we cannot neglect the pursuit of the internal meaning of human existence. To avoid conflict between individual and society，the principle of harmony seems also plays a crucial role here. In the age of globalization, the connotation of concept of society is significantly extended: what we are faced with is not merely nation or local domain, but between nations or inter-

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Harmony as a Principle of World Culture YANG Guorong (楊國榮)

states as well. Consequently, the issue of justice also extends from nation to inter-nations. Corresponding to this fact, there appears the issue of so-called global justice. Justice, in its origin meaning, is referred firstly a virtue concerning the relationship among individuals and between individual and society. In history, however, philosophers often interpret justice from different perspectives. For instance, in his republics, Plato understands the justice as the harmonious order between the different elements of the soul, or between the different classes of society. Comparatively, Aristotle seems to pay more attention to the distributive justice, and this approach is echoed, to some extent, in John Rawls’ theory of justice. What, then, is the substantial meaning of global justice? Roughly speaking, there are double connotations in this conception. In the first place, global justice is associated with the relationship among states or nations, and in this sense, it is often employed as the same concept as that of international justice. But if we observe the issue deeper then we may find that global justice also involves the relationship among people. It is plain that in the latter sense, this concept is, at the same time, connected with socalled universal ethics. Thus, therefore, global justice inherently contains two dimensions: one is overlapped with international justice, and the other shares something in common with universal ethics. Put it in other way, the first dimension is the states-focused one while the second is that of the people-focused. For convenience, we may consider the second dimension firstly. On this side, the global justice implies that the people in all states or nations should share the equal rights, that is, they are supposed to be treated equally and fairly in relevant spheres such as politics, economy, culture and the like. This may be, as it were, one of the reasons why John Rawls selects and applies the concept of the law of peoples instead of that of international law when he investigates the justice in international affairs. The foundation of law of peoples consists in

giving priority to people even in dealing with the international affairs. From this perspective it follows that global justice means, among others, to respect people’s right to improve their own economic welfare, politic position, education situation, and so on, no matter they are in which state or nation. In other words, if we try to carry out the principle of global justice thoroughly, then we surely ought to treat people in different states or nations equally. However, historically, in dealing with the international affairs, the priority is often given to state-interests. The evident instance in this aspect is that while the countries, especially the developed countries, always commit that they will take care the welfare of people in their own state equally, they never really do the same to the people in other country, especially developing country. Ironically, even in this case these countries can still claim that they advocate global justice. Here we may find certain tension between universal ethics and global justice: By principle, the universal ethics implies that the same norms should be applied to the people in all states with no exception. Though, however, global justice and universal ethics have something in common in the sense that both are connected with the peoples, yet the former seems to fail to carry out the principle of universality and equality throughout. Now let’s turn to the first dimension of global justice, i.e., the states-focused one. Similarly, the issue here is also pretty complicated. As mentioned earlier, associated with international law, global justice points to, at the same time, the relationship among states. Generally speaking, the substantive connotation of justice consists in recognizing and respecting for people’s rights. In other words, the justice means in general that every person has the right to be treated equally or fairly. As the employment of justice in the domain of international affairs, global justice implies that every states or nation, be it poor or rich, small or large, should be treated equally and fairly. Economically, it means that each country can share equally the natural resources, market, and the like, and

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Harmony as a Principle of World Culture YANG Guorong (楊國榮)

politically, every state should be given rights to participate the relevant dialogue or discussion on international affairs, and express their owe opinions in international community as well. Unfortunately, this also is the certain kind utopian ideal which never be really realized in history. In reality, what we often see is rather the reversed situation. Both economic resources and political power are always dominated by a few powerful states, and for the rest parts of the international community, the right to speak in international affairs is often merely symbolic. This situation shows that there is still a long way to go in realizing the global justice. Nevertheless, there is another side of global justice in the international affairs. When connected with the relationship among states, global justice is also manifested in the rational or fair international order or world-order. As pointed out above, one of the primary meanings of justice is associated with order, and we have seen, in the case of Plato, justice means the harmonious order among the different elements of the soul, or among the different classes of society. In the similar sense, global justice aims at the fair or rational order between different states or nations. By “fair or rational” here we principally mean that which will be helpful to attain what Kant calls “perpetual peace”. As the embodiment of global justice, the fair and rational order in international community is manifested in various ways, including such as mutual benefit in economic sphere, fair distribution of resources, the necessary balance of politic power and military force, reciprocal respect for culture equality, and the like. To attain these aims, the fundamental issue is respecting mutually national sovereignty among states. It is probably in this sense that Kant emphasize, when discussing perpetual peace, that “no independent nation, be it large or small, may be acquired by another nation by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or gift,” and “no nation shall forcibly interfere with the constitution and government of another”. Associated with the perpetual peace, the respect for national sovereignty shows, at the

same time, its fundamental meaning in global justice by guaranteeing the fair international order. It is obvious that at the level of fair order among states, the conception of global justice is no doubt quite thin, however, this conception seems to contain certain practical significance now. As asserted earlier, there are two dimensions in the issue of global justice; one is the people-focused, and the other statesfocused. The latter itself possesses two levels, i.e. equal rights between states and fair order among states. As we have seen, on the peoplefocused dimension and the rights aspect of states-focused one, global justice is mainly demonstrated as some kind value-orientation. It seems that, up to now, the regulative function of global justice is connected largely with rational international order, and what it shows is limited and thin conception. However, from perspective of hope, we ought surely not to confine ourselves to the certain scope. In the emerging age of global society, a strong or thick concept of global justice should be committed and pursued by international community. The justice in this sense will cover all meanings in both the dimension of peoplefocused and that of states-focused. Behind this thick concept of justice is the embodiment of the principle of harmony, which aims at the coexistence of various nations as well as the multiple cultures in the world. Though it may be a long journal to turn this dream or hope into reality, yet we have no reason to give up. Finally, I would like to point out that in our time, it is helpful for us to pay special attention to wisdom. Historically, the primary or origin meaning of philosophy is to pursue the wisdom. Different from knowledge, which mainly focuses on the particular object or particular field, wisdom goes beyond the particularity, and understanding being and world as a whole. From the perspective of wisdom, human being can also reaches his or her innate unity, selfintegrity, and concreteness, which will guide the process of both knowing and doing in various ways. However, associated with the domination

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Harmony as a Principle of World Culture YANG Guorong (楊國榮)

of scientific or instrumental rationality, it seems that wisdom is, in some extent, forgotten by people gradually, even philosophy itself also become a certain knowledge or special discipline, which display often the particular interest as well as the particular skill. By contrast, globalization shows more and more the tendency to make world as the whole, which consequently go towards the horizon beyond the separation and particularity. Here wisdom demonstrates its essential significance much more than before. It is apparent that we need overcome the forgetfulness of wisdom, and return to the perspective of wisdom. As matter of fact, this perspective is manifested, from the philosophical angle, the same principle as that of harmony. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

From China’s History to her Legal System ROOSEVELT-WELD, Susan

From China’s History to her Legal System ROOSEVELT-WELD, Susan Adjunct Professor and Executive Director of the Law Asia Leadership program, Georgetown University Law School

irst I want to say is, we in Massachusetts, we are live there, we did something which I think you might be interested in, Professor Ma. We set up an Asian-American connection, and I got everyone from Massachusetts units may got on, so we were around. One of the problems turned out will be people couldn’t get jobs, and they don’t like the way of their children being educated, so, you know, let’s go to talk the people who are head and in charge of these. It was fun to do, I don’t know where are they. And there total some of their happiness. I am not a philosopher and I am glad to be here, because I think I love the whole long stretch of Chinese history, and this is a great thing about setting this old text, and I am going to try to through the point of view my favorite passages and hope you can tell me when I am doing it wrong. First, I would like to say, in the Chinese legal system, of course scenarios got a lot of foreign aspect to it, first, it has a lot of civil law system which come from Soviet Union, which took its law from the civil law system of France. And it has a lot of civil law system by way of Japan. And a small amount from Taiwan. And it has own self developed very different legal system. And it is kind of hatch part right now, I do think this is a missing element. I heard a lot as everybody has about Chinese law, law with Chinese characteristics, I think to myself, what would that be, I think it will might be looking back some of this old legal documents from early china they are, vary legal they are collection of cases, and analysis how the cases

resemble each other, there is a certain amount the precedent use, at the early system, you found in on graves, so I would like the people think about that. That should be talked to children in school. When I talked to young Chinese people how they asked. Have you looked this old legal text? There is some quote of Qin Dynasty and some from the Han Dynasty and a few from the warring state period. None of them have read them, sometimes they have looked the gordian which is a grave from HuBei which have a large number philosophical text, I am sure it lived philosopher, at least heard of gordian text I know, reaming, has heard reaming, and also GHOYIN was here, who is fit with study some of the early text, so I think if all children in china are taught those ideas, I will go through and give you ideas and what kind of ideas they are. You might get some little closer to law with Chinese characteristics. When Deng Xiaoping came back into power after Mao’s death, after the 1978 meeting and so on. People thought with doing more westernization in the legal field. Part of it was because the head was feeling, if, you can tell me what do you going to be, I say, here are from the outside talking about China expected to be telling what’s the right thing, some people feel they are badly treated in the Cultural Revolution, it might be do some more protection of personal liberty, and so on. I think Deng XiaoPing had done this once, he was insulted badly treated several times, in some of political difficulties in China. And when he came in the power, he put some in the laws. The

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

From China’s History to her Legal System ROOSEVELT-WELD, Susan

first one was criminal code, and there was civil code and number of the other codes in early 80s. That was interesting enough, there was argument about whether China should take up a precedent system of law, and that way could by law cases from civil countries and any other countries or may be USSR. And by following those precedents put it directly in place, just a legal system which suited their situation because the USSR was socialist country and presuming have same kind of problem. That was quickly rejected, I think it was probably not legal under Chinese constitution. It is put power in the hands of judges, and set in the national centralized people’s congress. But not too long after that argument happened, archaeologist discovered the early Han collection of 22 cases with presidential value. ZhouSanShue (周尚書), which means cases which are moralized up to the center asked, which these two lines of authorities should be follow up, a local majesty follower, should they follow this one, which said the defendant shall be civilian punished, or follow this which the defendant should be let off. There were many interesting cases, they are deciding on these and I can tell you the fact of at least one. I think it was a musician named Liu had been suspected stealing a cow, a cow this time with the early Han Dynasty. So 288 B.C., 188 B.C. something like that. And a cow was a lot for somebody lose for their small family, and what happen is he got in the hands of the police and they tortured him. And they said... because at that time, the civil procedure from Qing Dynasty and early Han. They did have certain amount of beating to make sure you telling the truth. So he said: No, I didn’t take the cow. And they beat him and then he… several times he said no, and finally, he couldn’t said and said Yes Yes, I did, and then they put him in jail and they did something they did it only in those time of China, they sold his family to be government slaves, he was a stubborn guy. They often say that Chinese don’t have sense of justice, whenever you reading history, you found there was somebody who has been bellied feel like

that. They committed to complain, they don’t stop complaining, this guy Liu he complained, he finally got them, to refused his case, and the people found about who inspected his case came down and look him and he said: “look, you can see and hear that, and measure his body from the bleeding, and they will several finger second they said, “this is injustice” so they look into it more and found the cow is taken by his neighbor and not him. So they had to try to put it all together again. I guess they will send it to central government, the TING WEI (廷尉), the TINGWEI in the capital. And they sent back down, said, this guy should get justice, and he did. And he himself was free and doing a government job. And probably, I am not sure he was free from, he was made as a SHUEREN (庶人), he was made as a commoner status, which is better than being a prisoner, and his families was found in all the places that been sold to and bought back to him. So things were better to him. It’s a real case of presidential justice. I think about this, as one of the cases, there was no, at that time, still is no real sense raise to the conduct, in China. So if you found do not have been guilty, no matter how long it go, people made huge average to go, make it whole again. In this case, the prisoner’s family was recovered, all his assets was recovered, said that, it could be, he was make whole again. And it happens nowadays in China. It may not we westerners think that it is rule with law, it certainly it seems justice to the people of the time, seems justice to me. So that’s one book, and has many other kinds of cases. One thing is interesting right now, in other to get unit for fabric of law cross of China, China is such a huge place. They put it in new regulation called it (主導性案件), which is guided cases. So if the government found that in certain cases very useful and should be put in the case elsewhere in China been chosen particular category of case and judges all over china can use that as a precedent for their local decisions. That’s just beginning to happen there is a project in Stanford where they are collecting all the guiding cases and analyzing. They are

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

From China’s History to her Legal System ROOSEVELT-WELD, Susan

trying to see what is going to do to shave the law in China in the future. So, I am sure there certainly not connected. The finding of these sub secure books of Han presidents and the creation of these regulations of guiding cases uncertain that is collected. It shows China is such a great huge country, these things can be, and this anything like that? That can happen. Now I am going to go back to more bamboo slips because there really… I don’t know you ever seen them. You have to look them in museum… this long, about this thick, and they have thick clear black characters with ??? from the olden time, and the books were all sleeps with tide together, side by side and roll up and roll. And they found them in the graves, usually the strips tide them together have rotting way, so you might see them floating on the water inside of the grave. Does it surprise you these things still survive in graves from such long time ago, these is from 300 to 400 B.C. They are in water, so oxygen does not get in water, doesn’t get change after time it created the opportunity for rot. So very surprise for the people who found them. And they know, people in Hubei and Jinjau (荊州) museum and other museums in the center part of country know how to preserve them. They take them out of the graves and they carefully slowly and slowly suck the water out of them, put in the bath in different chemicals and then they study and put them in order. That’s the hardest thing to do. Because you may have the copy of classic that you know but even… I supposed if you memorized the classic which many people and don’t many of you have. DU Wei Ming, I am sure, has memorized many classics. As you memorize, it’s easy to put them in order. But many of them are new, that’s the exciting thing. We use some of the things, but these are new classics, these are new ancient authorial texts know have thing, having them. So this is an issue about them, where do you think these new slips come from? There are often graves, sometimes in ancient wells, why they are in wells, because the government will have been conquered by one of its enemies, the first they

will say… I think somewhere in Zhan Guo Ce(戰國策), there were some description of state of CHU(楚) was conquered by Wu (吳). And first they do will say throw, when they run away all their records under their arms, because these records will tell you who owes what taxes, who was on pieces of land, who is convicted what sort of crimes, sort of like power to these Kings and governments. And the archaeologies should please about that, when this huge building are being built in ChangSa (長沙), a place in HUBEI, I meant in HUNAM or in HUBEI, they come across a well in ancient bamboo slips, and the witness clear today. And I have, I didn’t bring my copy, I have a book with pictures of these beautiful slips. I think you should all seem them, if they come out visiting exhibition. And the builders covered by a straight law, which comes across archaeological artifacts, you must tell them to nearby office of archaeological research. Unlike us, every small county, small village has its own office (文物考古工作站), a small, can be a very small office. But 文物考古, archaeological research office. So artifacts, little found, don’t just get throw away, they can take it in and put it in the office. People like us, willing study in confidence. In HENAN, so we went to all the suitable local office and asked: “Please, can we see what you have?” and they had quite a lot, in this little small office. They are not the best things, because the archaeologists from Beijing and Nanjing and Shanghai are going not to leave them of the best beautiful things. But they leave them with scraps which is interesting to us because they have writing on them. So we can find the old things and the old laws that way. I am telling you a little bit detail about the QINGHUA slips. QINGHUA and BEIDA and the big universities have very loving alumni. And the alumni now they go to Hong Kong and places with large artifacts markets. They buy things which happens, so they buy from grave robbers or some… maybe they just sold there because in mountain there is no body captain carefully. Most of them are still in good shape,

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

From China’s History to her Legal System ROOSEVELT-WELD, Susan

were sold by grave robbers to the dealers in Hong Kong. Museum heads like Ma Cheung Yan, was one of the first to find this thing. Ma cheung yan is a great hero who found, one thing he found was very amazing, he found a bell in Hong Kong market, a bronze bell. They hang from a rack very often. He bought it from market, and it turn out it was a… it turn out to be the matching one of a set of bell they have excavated in southern SHANXI province a bit year later, something like that. So that kind of magic thing happen if you can keep your eyes on the artifacts market. And there are also having… Firstly, the archaeologists and the grave robbers only focusing on treasure like that bronze bell. But now they discover people are equally interested in the writing. I am more interesting in the writing, isn’t it? Amazing in all hear the voice of people that long ago. And for all the purpose, you are thinking about that the values in China and values also around the world. Their products are what we worth. These things are more philological and the alumni of university are giving them, binding up and giving them to their all university. QINGHUA, has got a group from it. I don’t think I will tell you all of them. What they did with their groupers? First they argue a lot of about: “Should we buy this?” grouper tests. Because buying things from tomb robbers does encourage the looters. On the other hand, you don’t buy them, they so easy to be destroyed, the writing gold slip itself crumbles away and so the whole information is lost. So after much talk and many meetings, QingHua did decide to allow his alumni to buy this. And they turn out to be, the first thing they found was the nine chapters, just like the book of documents but not the same, so some of them are new chapters. If you were, say, a Christian, and they found many more chapters from Job or something… that type of things. So they were very pleased to get them, they use the donors’ money to build a huge lab to protect and reconstruct them. I want to give you just a sample of the kind of writing, there in it. And there is one of that BaoSun, it is suppose

an account of King Wen (文王), when he is about to die, he wants to give his advice to his heir, King WUFA. His advice, he wants to give right to him. And he is very anxious because he feels he might die soon. And the advice written down in BAOSHUN which means something like, pleasures message or pleasures teaching and they have this story about SHUN (舜). In former days, when Shun was a commoner, small commoner, he himself was prowling on LEECHAU on MOUNT LEE. And he was full of reference, he roughly class to the center, the center, I am not sure what center means, but this is one of the important terms in Chinese value system, it’s used for loyalty to. He was reveny class think it. He carefully monitory his own ambition and he carefully didn’t turn his back on the desire of ten thousand people, of many desire of ten thousand people. So in this admonition, right there, is advice to the new king, that he is take care of people want. And that’s only thing I read. I think it’s key and interesting in this classic has a particular line in it, and it has more in it, of course, if you interested in reading our first translation, thank you very much. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The New Cultural Landscape in International Relations YUAN Ming (袁明)

The New Cultural Landscape in International Relations YUAN Ming (袁明) Director of the Institute of International Relations, Peking University

conomic globalization is a hugely significant historical phenomenon, which is rapidly growing in scope. While facilitating a rise in global wealth, and increasing both the pleasures and pressure in our lives, it is also further widening the gap between the rich and the poor. As a result of globalization, many resources required for economic development are now available across the world. However, the global “cultural map” and mankind’s spiritual world remain diverse and multifaceted. The severe repercussions of the global financial crisis, the violent conflicts that have broken out in some regions, terrorist activities, climate and environmental problems, and natural disasters, alongside many other issues, have had a fundamental impact on people’s ways of thinking. In addition, the ever-changing modes of information transmission are posing unprecedented challenges to our abilities to comprehend, adapt and respond to the world around us. Thus, when considering the new international political and economic landscapes, we must not overlook the new cultural factors in international relations. With the deepening of economic globalization, world cultures will interact and communicate with one another on a newer and broader basis. Since time immemorial, human beings have created a diverse variety of cultures, nurtured by nature and history. Due to differences in geography, climate, history, anthropology and transportation, world cultures have taken on abundant and diverse features. Since the 17th century, when the modern international system took shape, through the

18th century, when the Industrial Revolution began in Europe and through the 19th century, when the international political and economic system was formed and Europe established colonies around the world, the diversity of world cultures has always existed, but has been characterized by the dichotomy of Western vs. non-Western. On one side, stood the violent approach of aggressive Western cultures, and on the other side, lay the passive response and twisting fate of non-Western cultures. There is no one definitive means by which to understand and evaluate cultural interactions, and, especially not when evaluating the response of non-Western cultures to these. In other words, many non-Western cultures and civilizations have yet to find satisfactory answers as to how to respond to the challenges posed by modern Western cultures and civilizations. Marshal Chen Yi, then Vice Premier and Foreign Minister of China, composed a poem during a visit to Africa with Premier Zhou Enlai in 1964, which reads as follows: “To forgive? Who will agree? To call for retribution? Unnecessary might it be. The most ruthless thing is but the logic of struggle.” Reading it again today, I couldn’t help but recall the rough and arduous path the Chinese nation has traveled in modern times, and came to appreciate the vision and insight of our predecessors. During the 1990s, the world economy and politics entered a period of globalization, marking the dawn of the post-Cold War era of international relations. Western culture had defeated its ideological opponent, one that had challenged it for about a century, and the United

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The New Cultural Landscape in International Relations YUAN Ming (袁明)

States declared itself world leader. Mainstream public opinion around the world supported this claim, believing that globalization equated to Westernization and Americanization. Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Phillips Huntington explored this idea further in their books, Fukuyama from the perspective of historical philosophy and Huntington from that of culture and civilization. If their conclusions hold true, the central task of nonWestern cultures and civilizations is to focus on their relationships with Western cultures, and in particular with American culture. However, the reality is far more complicated than this suggests. So, how should we define the “new cultural map” in economic globalization? One interesting phenomenon is in the process of economic globalization, different cultures and civilizations have not only not merged with one another, but instead have retained their own individual characteristics. There is no single predominant feature of global cultural interaction and communication in the world today, as shown by the fact that the dichotomy of Western vs. non-Western no longer dominates international relations. Instead, different cultures have begun to examine, express and redefine themselves, and even compete over spheres of influence. Facing the challenges posed by globalization, Western cultures have a tendency to disintegrate: European cultures have become introverted, suspicious of change and have resorted to self-protectionism; the Anglo-Saxon countries represented by Britain, Australia and the United States are attempting to change this by promoting multiculturalism; Japanese culture is in a state of flux; meanwhile, Latin America is adopting an open-minded and liberal perspective to reflect upon its diverse, extroverted, ethnic and cosmopolitan culture. More remarkable still are: Indian culture, which brims with confidence; Islamic culture, which guards its traditions closely, but also seeks change; and Russian culture, which is once again trying to mark out a space between Western and non-Western cultures. They are

all trying to find their own strategies and paths to meet the challenges of globalization, and for the most part, are looking to their own cultural traditions and social capital for inspiration. It is worth noting that most of these lively and independent non-Western cultures are on China’s doorstep, and in this age of globalization, these are the countries with which China will conduct many of its cultural exchanges. Therefore, in addition to addressing problems left over from the country’s early stages of modernization and continuing its dialogue on values with Western cultures, China must face new issues that have arisen in this globalizing era and prepare for dialogue and exchange with the rising cultures of today. While economic globalization is in full swing on the material level, it has triggered various problems on the spiritual level. A rich material life is a symbol of historical progress. The idea of “putting material well-being first ”, which dates back to the Enlightenment of the 18th century, has become a reality in this age of globalization. In this era of materialism, our values have lost their foundation, leading to the belief that all “values” must be “visible” and “tangible”. This has led to the relentless pursuit of efficiency and success, and wealth becoming the main measure of achievement. This materialistic attitude and cultural weightlessness is seriously destabilizing human life. One significant indication of the cultural weightlessness in today’s society is the fact that we are having trouble with self-identity. Questions such as “Who am I?” and “Who are we?” are raised time and again, indicating that self-identity is a problem affecting both individuals and social groups. It is worth considering that these questions also exist in capitalist societies and even in their core intellectual circles, meaning that this can no longer be viewed as a trivial problem. In 2004, Samuel Huntington, a Harvard University professor, warned in his book, Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity, that Americans need to hold on to the Anglo-

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The New Cultural Landscape in International Relations YUAN Ming (袁明)

Protestant culture that makes them Americans; otherwise America will no longer be America. Due to the broad reach of the English language and the influence of the U.S.-dominated media, his argument was widely publicized, yet was also greatly disputed and criticized. In 2006, Amartya Sen, an Indian economist, Nobel laureate and Harvard professor, asked “Who am I?” in his book, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. He proposed a new spiritual perspective, arguing that everyone has multiple identities, and that we should notice manifold selves and multiple cultures. This would help us to seek common ground among individuals and groups, thus promoting mutual understanding and respect. It is hard to predict where these soul-searching discussions in core Western intellectual circles might lead, but it is nevertheless important to look into the background of these discussions, as well as that of those involved. To some extent, this can reveal the impact of economic globalization on people’s ways of thinking, as well as the intensity and depth of this impact. “Who are we?” is also a question that has prompted self-reflection in Russia. At the International Forum on World Civilization held in Beijing in 2010, Russian scholar Igor Joseph delivered a speech entitled “Thoughts on Russian Civilization”, in which he pointed out that, in this ever-changing world, it is necessary to solve Russia’s problems of self-identity and update frameworks in which this is reflected upon. During the process of globalization, regionalization and integration in the economic field have not brought about corresponding changes in the cultural field. On the contrary, due to the unprecedented increase in cultural exchanges and interactions, the desire to pursue one’s own identity has only grown stronger. “Who am I?” is not only a question asked in developed countries, but also in developing countries. In the regions where economic and social development lags behind, people are not only puzzled by the question “Who am I?”, but also confused by many other questions, such as

“Who should I believe in?” and “Who should I rely on?” Economic globalization internationalizes the production and consumption of all countries. This globalization may also extend to many other aspects, beyond those that we can conceive of at present. However, one noteworthy global phenomenon is that the “top-down” values system is being challenged by a “bottom-up” system in which cultural position is sought. This “bottom-up” approach can be observed in almost all areas of life. Take the traditional international political and economic pattern as an example. Both sides of the Atlantic used to be the core of international politics and economy, with their cultures and civilizations exerting immeasurable influence upon the world for several centuries. However, this has been changed by economic globalization. Today, the global wealth distribution is still far from fair, yet is no longer a system that serves only to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Unless rich countries make the necessary adjustments before it is too late, they will lose the opportunity to increase their wealth. The spread of the European debt crisis is a case in point. At the other end of the spectrum, developing countries that respond quickly and cope well with the changing global situation will be the beneficiaries of this wealth redistribution. Moreover, countries blessed with rich resources are now part of the global production chain and are sharing the fruits of prosperity. It is precisely this new economic basis and the growth opportunities it has brought about that have boosted the confidence and cultural consciousness of countries and cultures that used to be passive and at the bottom of the global pecking order. Development, confidence and cultural consciousness have given rise to the emergence of several new regional cultural hubs in the era of globalization: the Czech Republic in Central and Eastern Europe, Qatar in the Gulf Area, the Republic of Korea in Northeast Asia and Singapore in Southeast Asia are only some of the many examples. Though lacking cultural

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The New Cultural Landscape in International Relations YUAN Ming (袁明)

originality in the traditional sense, they have demonstrated outstanding ability in cultural communication and in exerting their influence in their local regions. The cultural ideas that they exemplify are different from both those of American culture and of their surrounding traditional civilizations. The new “bottom-up” approach has meant that cultural issues now have greater social implications. For instance, in today’s business world executives often use the terms “enterprise culture” and “corporate culture”. At the same time, employees are also increasingly demanding a working environment in which “fair treatment” is a priority. It is by no means easy to establish a corporate culture that both individual groups and the whole society accept, but it is precisely the challenging nature of this task that offers infinite untapped potential to all leaders. This “bottom-up” approach also promotes a boom in popular culture. Economic globalization brings about technological breakthroughs, which helps to create a global cultural space accessible even to people at the bottom of society. In such a space, communication among people is transient, mutual and equal, with the form of communication taking precedence over its logic, and its speed taking precedence over its depth. In the meantime, capital and markets are also expanding in this huge space. Technology, capital and markets are the powerful forces driving the boom in bottom up popular culture. Across the world, various cultural dialogues and exchanges are taking place at multiple levels and through multiple channels. The increasing diversity in the identities of the participants is expanding the scope of these discussions, which include intercultural communication, religious dialogue, adolescent education, health and happiness, mankind and nature, women’s issues, etc. Conclusion With regard to the new cultural landscape in

international relations, we must consider which issue is the most pressing. The kind of global environment that Chinese culture is confronted with on its road to development, the international cultural environment in particular, remains the most pressing issue today. China has been facing this issue since the May 4th Movement of 1919 when great efforts were taken to understand more about the global environment. In fact, we can trace this issue back further to the late Qing Dynasty and early Republican period when the Chinese were awakened and began to take interest in the world beyond China’s borders. Thus, we are still facing the same problem that our predecessors were unable to solve 100 years ago. Our understanding will always lag behind changes in the world. Before old problems can be solved, new challenges present themselves. What then is the old problem in the new challenge? How can we define the new challenge? How can we respond to the old problem? In today’s new global environment, how can China strike a balance between adhering to its cultural heritage and opening up to the world? Can the new cultural landscape in international relations provide new references for China in both its cultural development and cultural exchanges with other nations? Since the reform and opening-up policies of the late 1970s and the rapid economic development that they brought about, contemporary China’s “cultural consciousness” has entered a new phase. The tolerance, moderation and composure that are in the genes of Chinese culture are being revitalized in this new era. This “cultural consciousness” is being awakened both from the top down and from the bottom up. In the wake of economic development, goals are being put forward to create “provinces rich in culture” and “cities rich in culture” across the country. Attempts to rediscover our cultural roots have become commonplace. Instead of proposing the philosophical question “Who are we?” like Samuel Huntington, we are searching for the answer directly through practical actions, including worshipping our ancestors, studying

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The New Cultural Landscape in International Relations YUAN Ming (袁明)

ancient Chinese civilization, promoting folk cultures, and so on. In some cities and key academic institutions, various platforms for cultural dialogue and international cultural exchange have been set up. Artists and scholars are now using a variety of modern ways of expression to tell many vivid stories about China. These stories are rich in content, revealing the spirit, essence and character of Chinese culture，as well as Chinese people’s psyche, attitudes to life, desires, concepts of beauty and so on. Many practical steps are being taken to resolve this issue. Reflection upon an issue and steps toward its resolution go hand in hand. The ability to reflect is an indication of vitality. Thus, Chinese people must broaden their global vision and in doing so, reach new spiritual heights in order to successfully resolve this century-old problem. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Basic Values, Core Values, and Cultural Configurations of Value LI Chenyang (李晨陽)

Nation State versus Civilization State Core Values in Understanding State Behaviors

Basic Values, Core Values, and Cultural Configurations of Values LI Chenyang (李晨陽) Can there be Universal Human Core Values for a World Order? A Catholic Perspective CASANOVA, José Understanding Powers in the Future ZHAO Tingyang (趙汀陽) The Role of Trust in Sino-American Relations CHANIS, Jonathan

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Basic Values, Core Values, and Cultural Configurations of Value LI Chenyang (李晨陽)

Basic Values, Core Values, and Cultural Configurations of Values LI Chenyang (李晨陽) Founding Director of the Philosophy Program, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

alues are represented in concepts that stand for ideals and for what are considered worthwhile in life. At the minimum, the word “value” has an objective sense and a subjective sense. In its objective sense, “value” stands for what we consider worthwhile. It can be considered “a philosophical equivalent of the goodness, the excellence, the desirability, and what not which we attribute to certain objects, states, and situations.” (Findlay, 1970: 6) In the subjective sense, “value” is something we hold as motivating forces for pursuits in life. We say, for instance, bravery is a value in our belief system. In this sense, human values direct our lives, facilitate success in our pursuits, and promote human flourishing. Considered as such, values are not specific goods that people acquire; they are the reasons underlying people’s pursuit of these goods. For example, someone gives to charity because he holds that generosity is a good value and that miserliness is not. When we praise a person’s action as courageous, we use the value of “courage” to evaluate her action and to encourage similar actions. Values are connected in various ways. For instance, kindness, compassion and generosity are related concepts. We may say that values are the knots in the web of practical reasoning. We often call the embodiment of a value in a person “virtue.” A virtue in a person is his or her trait which instantiates a value or values. What is considered virtuous reflects the values in the culture. I will focus on value in the subjective sense in this essay. In a society or culture, some values are basic in that they are essential to human survival

and flourishing. In general terms, basic human values are similar across cultures. One difficulty in cross-cultural studies of value is that value terms used in different cultures are not precise. Values as formulated in particular cultures are not “natural kinds.” They do not conform to a universal mould. In order to avoid unnecessary disputes, I say that basic values across cultures are “similar” rather than “same,” even though sympathetic readers may accept a stronger claim that basic human values across cultures are the same. Evidence in support of such a claim can be found in such studies as the World Values Survey (see the World Values Survey by Ronald Inglehart and his team at the University of Michigan, http://www.worldvaluessurvey. org/). I believe that basic human values are similar across cultures because human values answer to human needs, and that basic human needs, in general terms, are similar across cultures. The particular forms of these needs can be culture-specific. Nevertheless, their basic needs remain the same in general terms. Basic human values respond to these needs. For the purpose of this essay I do not need to set a specific scope for basic human values. Suffice it to say that these are a cluster of high-order common values one would associate with the good life, such as “knowledge,” “kindness,” “health,” “wealth,” “bravery,” “friendship,” “respect,” “temperance,” “strength,” “liberty,” etc. Basic values are expressed in terms of general concepts and they are not culturespecific, even though they can be translated into culturally specific terms. In a way, basic values are comparable to Michael Walzer’s

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Basic Values, Core Values, and Cultural Configurations of Value LI Chenyang (李晨陽)

“thin” moral ideals. Walzer argues that “thin” moral ideals are universal (Walzer, 1994). The theory of evolution maintains that we human beings are biological beings that have evolved to this day, that we as a biological species have no higher purpose than survival, and that our basic activities can be explained, directly or indirectly, in terms of this sole ultimate purpose. According to this view, human beings’ basic biological and psychological needs are formed through the same evolutionary process, and therefore these needs are the same or similar across societies. Without these needs being satisfied, the human species will not be able to continue. This, however, does not mean that every individual or group across cultures embraces all these values. Some individuals have blind spots in their value framework for various reasons. They are “abnormal” in society. A serial killer may not value the respect for the human life. An extreme loner may not value friendship. People of a particular school of thought may not value material wealth. But a society as a whole cannot have blind spots of basic values. It, however, can rank a value considerably higher or lower than another society does, as I will discuss shortly. Nor is this to deny that social practices can vary from culture to culture. Some of these differences can be explained by divergent applications of values. The same values may be manifested in different ways. In one society, being a good community member (a basic value) implies attending church regularly, while in another it does not. In one culture, parents take their sick children to medical doctors whereas in another parents take them to shamans for religious rituals. The parents in both societies nevertheless share the value of their children’s health, even though they take different ways to pursue it. Other differences in the realization of values are mostly explainable in terms of different assessments of the worthiness of a practice in pursuit of values. To many people, bullfighting in Spain is cruel. One may ask, how could

people value animal cruelty? A reasonable explanation is that people in Spain do not value animal cruelty; they value sportsmanship, bravery, national spirit, entertainment, and their cultural tradition; in bullfighting they see these values that they share with the rest of the world more than the suffering in the animal. They may not deny that bullfighting causes pain in the animal, but they see it as minimal and worthwhile, given the positive values realized in doing it. Therefore, different moral practices across cultures do not prove that cultures do not share basic values. Another feature of human value is that some of these basic values conflict or at least compete with each other. Isaiah Berlin has argued that “values can clash” (1991, 12). This is so because, in my view, values are vectorial. If we imagine a moral space with values in it, each of these values carries both a force and a direction with respect to one another. This vectorial character of values prompts a person to act in a certain way. Because some values compete on the same dimension, they may conflict with one another. Each value points in a direction for a person to act. When a person acts in one direction, he or she cannot act in another direction with equal force. For example, a person’s own freedom and her loyalty to someone else may conflict. “Freedom” and “loyalty” are valued in all societies, even though the ways and degrees in which they are practiced can vary considerably. Some people may not feel the tension or conflict between individual freedom and loyalty; they say that can freely choose to be loyal to someone. However, as long as loyalty holds one from breaking away, there is clearly a tension between these values. Some values conflict because they compete for time and resources in their realization. Just as one may find it impossible to fully develop both one’s scholarship potentials and athletic potentials, one may find it difficult to be a responsible caring mother to her children and, at the same time, a “Mother Teresa” to help the poor all over the world. Berlin writes,

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Basic Values, Core Values, and Cultural Configurations of Value LI Chenyang (李晨陽)

The world that we encounter in ordinary experience is one in which we are faced with choices between ends equally ultimate, and claims equally absolute, the realization of some of which must inevitably involve the sacrifice of others. (1969, 168) As individuals we deal with value conflicts one decision at a time. We appeal to our moral philosophy as formulated in our culture for guidance. But how does culture handle conflicting values? Obviously, if society is to retain all good values there has to be a way to bring these values together in a meaningful way. This is achieved through the formation of a value pattern within a culture. Value patterns reflect the established relationships between various values, including competing and conflicting values. I call the process of knotting various values together into a value pattern “value configuration.” This is a complex, long, and on-going process. Through this process values are prioritized and organized in a systematic way to reach what is deemed an ideal balance of values in a particular culture. Value configuration consists in two modules. First, values are ranked with respect to one another through prioritization. Differing cultures do not prioritize values the same way. For example, one culture holds loyalty to be a higher value than individual freedom whereas another culture does otherwise, even though they both endorse these values. While Confucianism places the observance of the general rules of li (propriety) above spontaneity, Daoism arguably does otherwise. Second, value configuration also indicates how much priority or importance one value is assigned vis-à-vis other values. It is possible that two cultures both hold value x to be more important than value y, yet they nevertheless disagree on how much importance separates these two values. The separation of these values admits degrees. For example, in the United States, freedom of speech is arguably given more importance vis-à-vis public decency than in many other countries. The inevitable cost of pursuing one value

incurred in other values makes it impossible to have absolute values. While people may think some values, for instance, human life, are absolute, they are not. Millions of people die of AIDS or cancer each year. If society invests more to enhance medical research, many lives may be saved. But then there is a cost in doing so, in economic as well moral terms. It would interfere with other important things that we also value. Many people think that the value of human rights is absolute. It is not. It is a severe violation of human rights when we send innocent people to prison for crimes they did not commit. Yet it happens. If we as society invest a lot more in better training our police force and legal personnel we could significantly reduce this type of human rights violations. But we do not do it. This is not because we do not value these innocent people’s human rights; it is mostly because there would be a cost to other things we also value: we also want national security, assistance to the poor, better health care, and so forth. After the “September 11” terrorist attacks, one rhetoric among American politicians has been that “no cost is too high for national security.” They are wrong. The cost for national security can be too high, again, because our value in security has a cost and it can interfere with other important things that we value so much that we are not willing to go beyond the limit for it. In value configurations, some values are taken as significantly more important than others. But there is no single value that “trumps” all other values in absolute terms. A configuration of values represents a conception, vision, and ideal of a good life. It is a systematized, conceptual response to society’s needs to survive and flourish. Alasdair MacIntyre speaks of tradition as an argument “about the goods which constitute that tradition” (1984, 222). While articulating a particular value configuration, a cultural tradition provides rationales as to why certain values are important or are more important than others. As a conception, value configuration cannot be precisely quantified. Relationships

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Basic Values, Core Values, and Cultural Configurations of Value LI Chenyang (李晨陽)

between values in a value configuration are usually loosely established. Different cultures may share a similar value configuration while manifesting it in different customary forms. Anthropological studies reveal different customary cultural forms as embodiments of values; comparative moral philosophy sheds light on different value configurations. Attempts to articulate, justify, or reform a value configuration can be found in moral philosophy as well as in social sciences. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is a good example of value configuration, so is John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice. Such researches in social science as the World Values Survey also give us a good sense of different value configurations across cultures. They reflect existing or emerging value configurations in societies. I call “core values” those values accorded top priority in a value configuration by a society or a culture in accordance with its vision of the good life. These are values a society or a culture holds as most previous and most worthwhile in pursuit. Because societies and cultures vary and cultural configurations of values also vary, there exist different sets of core values across societies and cultures. Something may be a core value to one culture, but not for another culture, even though both cultures share the same value. Free speech is undoubtedly a core value in the United States today, but not in China, even though it is arguably also a value in Chinese society. In today’s world, moral disagreement across cultures is often a disagreement on “core values,” namely the priority of values, than on values per se. Divergent configurations of values across cultures, rather than values per se, are the primary source of today’s resistance to moral universalism. The issue of human rights is a good example. While the so-called first-generation human rights emphasize social and political rights, the second-generation human rights give equal weight to economic and cultural rights. Some advocates of the first-generation rights reject or downplay the legitimacy of second-generation rights; some advocates of second-generation rights

downplay the importance of first-generation rights. Most people, I take it, accept the value of both rights even though they disagree on their prioritizations or importance. Article 10 of the 1993 Bangkok Declaration of Human Rights reaffirms “the interdependence and indivisibility of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, and the need to give equal emphasis to all categories of human rights.” Balanced as it is, this configuration of the values (rights) does not give as much priority to social and political rights as advocates of the first-generation human rights do. Even though sometimes people misjudge or overlook the value of a certain practice and they may change their evaluations on it, it is undeniable that cross-cultural moral disagreement is often caused by differences in the priorities of values in different value systems. Core values in a given society or culture change over time as environment changes. Forming a culture in a harsh material environment may have promoted its value configuration to prioritize thrift. But improved material circumstances may lead to a reconfiguration of values that degrades thrift and upgrades elegance. Because environment changes, visions of the good life evolve, so are their corresponding core values and their value configurations. In re-configuring core values, learning from other cultures can be useful. For this reason, intercultural dialogue is extremely important, especially in our global age. Such dialogues enable us to learn from one another, to better understand one another, and better adjust our own core values in pursuit of our evolving ideals of the good life, prosperous society, and harmonious world (see Li 2013). In summary, values direct our lives and motivate our pursuits. Because human beings have similar primary needs, basic values across societies and cultures are similar. But values compete and even conflict with one another. In developing a vision of the good life, a society or a culture configures various values in its value system that is deemed to be most suitable to its goal toward the good life. In each value

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Basic Values, Core Values, and Cultural Configurations of Value LI Chenyang (李晨陽)

configuration, a selected value set is prioritized as the most important to a vision of the good life. These are core values. Different societies and cultures may have diverged visions of the good life and hence varied configurations of values and different sets of core values. Here lies the deepest difference between societies and cultures. Intercultural dialogue not only enhances mutual understanding across societies and cultures, but it also provides venues for mutual influence in re-configuring value systems in each tradition. For this reason and others, intercultural dialogues are meaningful. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Can there be Universal Human Core Values for a World Order? A Catholic CASANOVA, José

Can there be Universal Human Core Values for a World Order? A Catholic CASANOVA, José Professor at the Department of Sociology at Georgetown University, and heads the Berkley Center’s Program on Globalization, Religion and the Secular

’m delighted to be here, have the opportunity to participate in this dialogue, in this conversation, and I’m most delighted that my center, the Berkeley Center, is core sponsor of this colloquium. I have to start by asking forgiveness to the interpreter because I don’t have a paper ready. I was assigned originally to a different panel and I was going to discuss values, and how traditional values can become modernized by using the Catholic model of Catholic aggiornamento and the resistance it had to accepting the principle of freedom of religion and human rights and eventually it embraced under the basis of the principle of human dignity. But then I was asked two days ago to be a part of this panel on nations and civilizations, so I’ve decided I will try to address the issue based on the question: Is the United States a nation-state, or a civilizational state? So the first question is what is the difference between nations and civilizations? Well modern nations by definition are always plural. A nation is only a nation in relation to other nation. And there are very clear boundaries between nations---territorial boundaries. Nation-states are territorially bounded units which hate a vacuum, and they continue expand until they find a territorial boundary. And actually, this process of modern expansion of territorial nations was started in 1493 after the discovery of America, when the Pope drew a territorial line saying all the lands to the left belong to

Spain, all the lands to the right belong to Portugal. So you have two Portuguese nationstates fighting over colonial territory. They had the same values. They were two Christian Catholic western nations, even Iberian nations; and yet, as nations, were fighting for territory. Civilizations are cultural units which are not necessarily political units. Some are. China was both a magnificent civilization and also a civilizational state for thousands of years; a successful one as Patrick Ho reminded us Matteo Ricci recognized it as close to the Platonic model of the ideal republic. But it was not a bounded territory. And civilizations, the other of civilizations is the barbarian peripheries and civilizations expand by incorporating, by civilizing the peripheries, not territories. Sometimes, Chinese civilization advanced by civilizing the barbarians who had invaded Chinese civilization. So we have two different models. Now the question is what is the United States? The United States is both. It’s “The First New Nation”, this is the title of the great sociologist Martin Lipset-Seymour Lipset-, “The First New Nation”, but it’s the first new nation with the vocation to become a global civilization. And so that’s why what are the founding core values of the United States, the self-evident truths “we the people”, but “we the people” are not only the Americans, ”that all men are created equal”. And so, all these selfevident truths are not only the founding truths

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Can there be Universal Human Core Values for a World Order? A Catholic CASANOVA, José

of the nation-state, they are supposed to be the self-evident truths of global humanity. And this is the tension between American nationstate and American civilization. Now Lipset wrote the book, asking the question: what is so exceptional about America, because there was a question about American exceptionalism because America is a new nation very different from the old European nations, so the question here was how could nations that have so much similar western Christian values be so different, so exceptional. So it’s the question of American exceptionalism and what distinguishes America from European nationstates but also from Canada. All the answers given to explain American exceptionalism and of course the question was originally addressed why America has no socialism. Well Canada had socialism and it was a modern new nation, so it could not be the explanation that we are offering. So this is the question then what I am not going to go into the Lipset’s own theory of what makes America exceptional, but this idea of American exceptionalism, which I as you know is being discussed between Obama and the Republicans, is at the core of the question. And this book was written in the 60s, around the same time-Now Lipset was a Jewish American sociologist. Another very important Jewish American scholar or public intellectual, Max Lerner, tried to answer the question by the title “America as a civilization”. Now he goes into what is this American culture that becomes globalized and what he found, the secret of American civilization, was what he called the imperialism of attraction. Of course, it also has empowered? Imperialism. It was the imperialism of attraction that made America so exceptional and so unique, and so different from the old European countries. It was a nation of immigrants which won the hearts, and the minds and the feet of everybody who wanted to become American. So who is an American? Who are “we the people”? Anybody who accepts these founding truths. Around the same time, however, we are talking about immigration in

the moment because this is the key issue about this country as well; it was already mentioned before about Chinese-Americans and every other American. Everybody is hyphenated I come from Spain. I am a Spanish-American. Yet, I’m trying here to explain to you which kind of country America is. Around the same time, another sociologist, a French sociologist, very important thinker of the second half of the 20th century, Raymond Aron, very brilliant, talked about sociologist, wrote a book called “The Imperial Republic”, about the United States and about the tension between being both imperial and republic, because America had twin identities. It’s an imperial power which had become the dominating power after World War II. The Pax Americana that had shaped the international system, most of the international institutions were very much set by the United States. At the same time, it is a republic, the republic among others, equal to other nations, under the system of international law. But we know how difficult it is for the United States to accept the notion. There is an international higher law under which the United States should be, so a nation under law, under international law is very difficult for civilizational nations to accept the principle of civilizations under international law. And China also has difficulties in this respect. And so which kind of nation is this? As you know, the whole debates between isolationists and of course expansionists and unilaterals and multilaterals are related, so it is a constant continuous debate within the United States-Which kind of nation we are? And then let’s look at not a sociologist but a historian of American religion, a very famous one, Sidney Mead, who wrote the book with an interesting title, “The Nation with the Soul of a Church”. Now the United States, and this is unique about the America compared with every European nation-states, did not have a national church. Every European country had national churches. So America did not have a national church, so not church-state, but the nation itself was a church—a church, a nation under God. ;

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Can there be Universal Human Core Values for a World Order? A Catholic CASANOVA, José

not under the law, but I mean of course, law, we ourselves make our laws , but what should be the values governing our laws , a nation under God? And the question is: Is this God our God that is always with us, protecting us, and justifying us? Or is this is a transcendental, universal God that judges us. Of course, this is the question raised systematically by another American sociologist, Robert Bellah, American civil religion, who also argued it’s true we don’t have a church; we have many different denominations: Protestants, Catholic, Jews, etc. And all of them, however, share one common national civil religion. And, Robert Bellah thought that through the inaugural speeches of presidents from Washington, through Jackson, through Lincoln, through Kennedy. And Kennedy was of course a Catholic, the first Catholic President and therefore, if he represented the civil religion, a Catholic, who for many decades, Catholics were also viewed as un-American and unassimilable. There was not only a lot of anti-Chinese; there was a lot of anti-Catholic nativism that was central to definition of the American nationalism throughout 19th century. And so, Robert Bellah found precisely this question. But for Robert Bellah, civil religion is not simply the ideology of nationalism; it should be precisely this higher law which judges and guides American nation so that it becomes a benevolent global civilization, not simply an imperial power. And of course, if you continue looking at----So if we look at the debate since Kennedy, and inaugural speeches--- there has been a lot. I mean it was mentioned in the fight of America’s core values, the cultural wars, Obama’s inaugural speeches were significant in terms of the civil religion expanding. The civil religion: at first this was a Christian nation, and Christian meant Protestant. Then it became a Judeo-Christian nation and did incorporate Catholic and Jews. And in the first inaugural speech, Obama said, “To the covenant belong not only Christians and Jews, but Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists and unbelievers”, which of course is the most interesting new addition

to the American civil religion. Before, it was even unthinkable that unbelievers could belong to the American civil religion. And then in the second inaugural speech, he added “our gay brothers and sisters”. So this notion, again, of core values that somehow are also being transformed by incorporating new people, we the people of course redefine ourselves precisely because we constantly redefine ourselves as a society through immigration. So let me address two other books, one by Susan Martin, the title is “A Nation of Immigrants”. Susan Martin, a colleague of mine, a professor at Georgetown University, directing the Center for Immigration there, before was the commissioner for immigration, has been dealing with immigration questions of reform. And as you know, immigration, what is—which kind of immigration nation are we--is at the core of all debates in the United States throughout history. And what she points out is actually the United States has three different models of immigration from the very beginning, and there has been a constant fight and struggle between these three models. There is the Virginia Colony, almost open borders, free labor, but no rights for laborers, very few rights. So free labor migration without rights. The opposite model is the Massachusetts, Puritan model. Yes, to become one of us, you have to accept our core values. So you have to be WASP: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant is what defined American values. And then you have the third which was Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was the colony from the very beginning that was much more open valued, pluralism, becoming the most diverse colony in religion, in language and in culture. Now, which America at large? You can build it either as a Virginia at large, or a Massachusetts at large, or a Pennsylvania at large. Well today, it is still all three debating with one another. And then you have, of course, he has been mentioned before, the great political scientist Samuel Huntington, infamous for his “Clash of Civilizations” which of course doesn’t make sense. Civilizations are actually singular

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Can there be Universal Human Core Values for a World Order? A Catholic CASANOVA, José

until they meet others, but civilizations are not territorially bounded geopolitical units. And Huntington views them as territorially bounded geopolitical units then civilizations will clash the same way that nations clash. But civilizations should not be territorially bounded units. They are something different. But he wrote another book “Who Are We?”. And he was to argue we are the descendants of Massachusetts, of the descendents of the puritans. We are WASP, and whoever wants to be an American should become WASP. Of course he knows the blacks wouldn’t become WASP, but he understands that blacks, the civil rights movement is a part of, so he wants to appear the civil rights movement as part of this Americanization, also of African Americans. And of course, the real threat for him is Latinos. Latinos who are precised the threat to American nationalism which is interesting because obviously many of the so-called Latinos are not immigrants, but they already were in America, it’s only that the borders of the United States invaded them. So you have the Mexican Americans that were already here before even the Puritans came, and of course Puerto Rico it was taken over. But the point is that Huntington here is talking not of America as a civilization the way in “The clash of civilizations”, he thinks of the United States as the leading power of western civilization, but here he is talking purely of America as a nation-state and what are the values of this nation-state. So the argument I’m making is that America is both a nation, the first new nation, and aspires to become a global civilization. It cannot make up its mind and it’s constantly fighting internally which of the two at every level of politics, of culture, of foreign relations, etc. We know of course that China is very different. China as I said is a very old, magnificent civilization, a very successful civilizational state, as Patrick Ho pointed out this morning, was defeated and humiliated by the Westphalian system of nation-states, and to recover, decided to become a modern self-reliant nation, and in order to

do that, had to abandon all its civilizational traditions and values. Now, China is finally a truly powerful nation, but it’s in the path of recovering and rediscovering the core civilizational values that it tried to repress and forget throughout the 20th century in its attempt to become a powerful nation. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Understanding Powers in the Future ZHAO Tingyang (趙汀陽)

Understanding Powers in the Future ZHAO Tingyang (趙汀陽) Great Wall professor of philosophy at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Steering member of Transcultura European, Curator of Chinese program; Visiting and lecturing professor at Harvard (2013)

he world is seeing the end of modernity rather than the end of history. And the global game is taking place of the modern game. Which powers have been most benefited by globalization? The quick answer seems to be “USA and China”, a wrong answer misled by the modern concept of nation-state. A more misled consequence is that, USA takes China as a challenging threat. My alternative answer is that, the global systematic powers, for instance, the global financial powers and the global media and internet systems, as well as the unknown new technologies to come, have been now or will be the dominating powers de facto. They are systematical powers everywhere instead of individual powers somewhere. They do not have boundaries, uncontrollable and benefitted from the anarchic world. They are free-riders of nations-states, and so powerful to manipulate and finally control all states and all minds. They are making a new map of powers. Power does not necessarily take the form of nation-state, nor necessarily depends on military force. Whatever controls resources will become the power. The most important resource in the future will be the best service of everything for all people. Financial system, internet, biological technologies will offer the best services that define all possibilities of everyone’s life, mind and body. They will develop new autocracy by means of market and democracy. Please remember my words: service is the power. It will be true when people could not live without the best service. The new powers of unlimited network could take more advantages of globalization, because

globalization grows in the way of connecting everything. Therefore, the problem of future will be the autocracy of global systematical powers. We are now encountering a new game lack of new rules, a case of original situation. Globalization makes a world-wide society out of the control of nation-states, not yet organized into a universal system of good order, therefore it makes a non-world. A non-world in anarchy was not a problem, but it is now, since globalization makes it a failed world, in which no rational collective action could be taken for sake of the world. Globalization is made paradoxical by itself in that it is world-wide but there is no world yet. Allow me to analyze the original situation of the global game with what I call “imitation test” (I take it more reasonable than Rawls’ veil of ignorance): given the game open to all possible strategies, and everyone is supposed of good ability to learn and imitate any more successful strategy from the others. As a result, none of the successful strategies can stay dominating for long, since all of them would soon become the common knowledge. Innovations take much more time than imitations, so that imitators will soon catch up with innovators. And the stable equilibrium will finally come when all players have learnt all available successful strategies and become equally smart or equally stupid. Then the situation becomes clear, a universally imitated stable strategy could either be a good one that benefits all or a bad one that hurts all (for instance, the Prisoner’s dilemma or the tragedy of the commons). If a universally

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Understanding Powers in the Future ZHAO Tingyang (趙汀陽)

imitated strategy will logically lead to negative retribution or self-defeating consequence, it will be a bad one that would ruin all players at last. So the truth is that, a desirable choice must be the strategy that could withstand imitations. I think the imitation test could explain what new rules will work better in the global game. And I bet on the rules of compatibility instead of the rules of competition, for the reason that the negative “externalities” such as the challenging other nations or powers in competition have become the necessary conditions for our survival. All powers are now interdependent in coexistence, a sort of symbiosis. It invites a new ontology of coexistence. My slogan is that, coexistence therefore existence. The global game does not foresee any more complete victory, since all powers are so much interdependent so that the strategies to defeat the other players could very likely become selfdefeating. But it does not mean we should talk the nonsense of win-win balance as politicians love to talk. There are ups and downs naturally, but the point is, the modern pursuit of victory by destroying others will make no sense in the global game. On the global conditions, the political question is how to make a world out of the non-world, to make new rules of game and a world of perpetual peace. The most influential project of peace must be the Kantian perpetual peace based on the political and cultural similarity of nations. This project could be challenged by Huntington’s clash of civilizations. What to do with the other states not recognized the “free states” or not on “our side”? How to deal with the other countries of different cultures or alternative political systems that we do not appreciate at all? The other nations devoted to alternative values would be very likely identified as the unqualified for the Kantian alliance so that excluded out of the society of “perpetual peace”. I do not think this problem will be solved through the battle of ideologies or international competition. The global conditions are fostering the systematic powers rather than the state powers, and the new order of the

world will be established when the transitive original situation be settled. As I see it, there are two possible ways: (1) the systematic powers successfully control all markets and all people by means of their best service, so the world becomes a society of service providers and consumers while governments become the administrative agents of the systematic powers, then the systematic powers will establish new rules of the world; (2) the state powers defend the national societies by an alliance of all great powers which forget the modern ideologies and make new rules to control the global game. It seems both of the possible ways will likely lead to a political revolution or transformation, which will come to a non-exclusive universal system that make a world society open to all cultures, all peoples and all nations. I call it an all-under-heaven system as a revisit to the old ideal of tianxia. The concept of all-under-heaven means a politically organized world society, and it requires a trinity of worlds: (1) the physical world, or “the earth under the sky”; and (2) the psychological world, or the reasonable choice of the “hearts of all peoples” in the world; and (3) the political world, or a universal system to develop “compatibility of all peoples”. The first experimental practice of all-under-heaven was in early China (Zhou Dynasty, 11th century BC to 5th century BC). All-under-heaven means not only a universal system but also a methodology of “letting all beings be” in terms of methodological relationalism, which seems to fit with the global conditions better than the modern methodology in terms of methodological individualism. The modern individual rationality fails to solve the problems of conflicts and unlikely to develop universal justice and perpetual peace, because collective rationality cannot be the expectable outcome from the aggregation of individual rational pursuit of maximization of exclusiveinterests. Individual rationality explains very well the case of rational consideration of maximization of self-interests, but relational rationality will instead explain the rational consideration of

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Understanding Powers in the Future ZHAO Tingyang (趙汀陽)

being with the others. Relational rationality focuses on relations instead of individuals, trying to solve the problems of conflicts on basis of relational consideration rather than unilateral strategies. Relational rationality could be characterized as giving priority to the minimization of mutual hurt instead of maximization of self-interests, with the consciousness of the consequences of strategic imitation. Thanks to the very concern of relational security and reciprocal improvement, relational rationality will be found more rational than individual rationality, not only in risk-aversion, but also in long-run reward. If I am right, relational rationality would explain universality better than individual rationality does. Unfortunately, modern mind seems to forget the truth that universality implies compatibility. It could be argued either in terms of Confucian harmony or Leibniz’s concept of compossibility. Different from the Kantian peace based upon the similarity of political existences, all-underheaven system instead looks to the compatible relations that benefit all political existences. I am much encouraged by the “Pascal’s wager” that argues the belief in God to be the best choice of no loss. In the same logic, it could also be argued the belief in all gods must be the best choice to avoid any possible punishment from any of them. If so, unite all gods! That is a way toward a new all-under-heaven. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Role of Trust in Sino-American Relations CHANIS, Jonathan

The Role of Trust in Sino-American Relations CHANIS, Jonathan Managing Member, New Tide Asset Management, LLC Trustee, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

ccording to the Sino-US Colloquium organizers, the aim of this conference is to enhance understanding of the United States and China’s “historic legacy and cultural values.” It defines core values as a group of principles, and set of moral codes that govern thoughts, establish identity, drive economies, set agendas, govern choices, and inspire expectations.” The conference organizers hope that this enhanced understanding will lead to a “…more accurate interpretation of each country’s respective actions.” I could not agree more with the goals of this conference and it is in that spirit that I want to raise the issue of trust and efforts to build trust in Sino-American relations. I think one of the best ways we can promote better relations is to be realistic about the nature of the U.S.-China relationship, especially by not sentimentalizing its essence. I am very optimistic about this relationship, regardless of how pessimistic my initial comment may sound. The crux of my argument is that the increasing emphasis on trust and trust-building can be counterproductive. In particular, it diverts attention and energy away from more immediate Sino-American concerns and their practical resolution. If we want to minimize the chances for misunderstanding and maximize the possibility of mutual accommodation, we need a realistic approach to the relationship which emphasis national interest and diplomacy, not vague and feel-good expressions about trustbuilding. When I survey the media, the op-ed pages,

the English language academic literature, and the statements of some Chinese officials, I see a significant and perhaps increasing emphasis on trust and trust-building. Some Chinese academic and government representatives are particularly keen on this emphasis. But there are also other non-Chinese advocates of this view including such notable representatives as the Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, and even retired U.S. Navy Admiral and former Joint Chief of Staff Michael Mullens. But most of my personal experience with such encounters has been with Chinese colleagues. In fact, my interest in this issue came from seeing many of these encounters deteriorate into a non-productive discourse on vague strategies for trust building. Accordingly, I would like to share with you first, why I think this emphasis on trust is ineffective, and second to note what I think are some core American foreign policy values that will make Chinese efforts promoting trust ineffective and counterproductive. Additionally, I would suggest to you that these core American foreign policy values also offer both sides the best prospect for successfully dealing with many of the international problems that concern each side. They do this by establishing a common framework for advancing U.S.China understanding and cooperation. Before proceeding to critique the concept of trust in Sino-American relations and discussing core U.S. foreign policy values, I want to make explicitly clear the role this issue has in current public Chinese foreign policy thinking. The best

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Role of Trust in Sino-American Relations CHANIS, Jonathan

example of this is found in a recent comment by He Yafei, deputy director of the Chinese State Council’s Overseas Chinese Affairs Office and former vice minister at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In a recent Foreign Policy article, he stated: “Here in Beijing, we are asking: Is U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy toward China undermining the already flimsy strategic trust between the two countries? Is it possible for China and the United States to build a new type of great-power relationship, one that can help us avoid confrontation and conflict?...” “Clearly, a huge deficit of strategic trust lies at the bottom of all problems between China and the United States. Some scholars have hinted that U.S.-China trust is at its lowest since U.S. President Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 visit to China... And from a historical perspective China and the United States, despite their differences, have many things in common, and there is no reason for them to distrust each other...” “Now, a new type of relationship between China and the United States requires changing the outdated view of a rivalry among great powers for spheres of influence and the inevitability of a confrontation between existing and aspiring powers.” I do not know He Yafei, so I really can’t asses if he actually believes what he wrote, but in any event such emphasis on trust is misguided for several reasons. First, there is the issue of defining “trust” and determining at what level of analysis it occurs. What exactly does trust mean? How if at all does trust differ from “confidence?” Does it happen between states? Between governments? Between collectives, or just between individuals? Some have defined trust as the idea that a state will “reciprocate cooperation rather than exploit it,” or the “voluntary acceptance of vulnerability.” Others have defined it as “the expectation of no harm … where betrayal is always a possibility…” But this still misses the point that trust probably only can exists between individuals, or very tightly connect

groups of people. It is easier to understand how trust or mistrust may factor into encounters between senior government leaders, but even there, how does this translate to entire governments? And clearly at the state level it is difficult to talk about trust. States are legal fictions that don’t have beliefs, and trust is a belief that someone or something is reliable, or good, or honest, or effective. I can trust that my car will start on a cold winter morning; I can trust the sales clerk and not count my change. But that two states can trust each other is just an abstraction too far. Second, trusting relationships in international relations are, as Keating and Ruzicka have said, “relatively rare and difficult to achieve.” Perhaps the best examples are U.S.-Japan or U.S. Canada relations, but even here, the “trust” seems to be experienced more by one partner (the weaker) than by both, and there are myriad other vulnerabilities which provide the weaker partners with significant leverage (or “hedges”) in the relationship. Regardless, even if a few trusting relationships in international politics exist, and this is still debatable, international cooperation without trust is the rule, not the exception. We have decades, if not centuries of examples of states (or really their representatives) that distrust each other, engaging in cooperative behavior. Some of the best historical examples can be found in U.S.-Soviet relations, especially the alliance during the Second World War, and the subsequent movement toward arms control beginning in the1960s. It would be very difficult to see a high level of trust in the U.S.-Soviet relationship during any period. Similarly, in the U.S.-China relationship, low trust has not stopped the two countries from cooperating when their interests coincide. Examples of this would include when the United States sold weapons and weapons technology to China in the mid-1980s, and after 9/11 ---and the EP-3 incident, when the United States and China cooperated extensively on anti-terrorism strategies. Today, one also can look at the U.S.-

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Role of Trust in Sino-American Relations CHANIS, Jonathan

Saudi Arabian, and perhaps even the U.S.Israeli relationships and see relatively low trust, yet high cooperation. Third, one can only wonder if repeated Chinese references to trusts are simply a ruse to gain advantage over the United States. This is particularly the case when one examines the list of actions that China wants the United States to undertake in order to“build trust.” It is a wish list of policy changes that includes no arms sales to Taiwan, no dealings with the Dali Lama, no engagement with pro-democracy forces in China, no support of U.S. treaty obligations to Japan in regard to its territorial disputes, no sailing of U.S. Naval forces into the Yellow Sea in support of South Korean, etc. In short, it is a list that says: “just stop doing most everything you are doing and go away and leave the management of East Asia to us. And of course, once you do this, we will trust you.” In one sense, I can understand why China pursues this strategy. There is a part of the American public, going back for decades and most prominently symbolized by the idealism of President Woodrow Wilson, that views all international conflict and disputes as the result of gigantic misunderstandings between reasonable people. “If only men and women of goodwill would sit down and reason things out, all our problems could be solved.” This idealistic, if not utopian vision of humanity focuses on the supposed goodwill of all people; on how no one wants to dominate another; on how all conflict is resolvable, and on how force is never justified. Catering to this segment of the American public probably does create some small advantage for China in the policy arena, but it creates larger problems because it goes against many well-established values and principles of international conduct which a larger number of Americans, particularly among the elite, hold. In spite of occasional comments, such as those recently made by President Barak Obama about the “decades of mistrust between the United States and Iran,” or by Senator John

McCain that when it comes to Syria, Vladimir Putin “cannot be trusted,” the United States has a long tradition, grounded in particular beliefs and values about how international affairs is conducted. While not all Americans overtly ascribe to “political realism,” or more properly, “neo-realism,” many, particularly among the elite hold views which are highly sympathetic to this view of the world. One of realisms most important tenets is that the aspiration for power is the distinguishing feature of all politics, including international politics. Other important tenets include notions like: • International politics still takes place in an “anarchic” world; Competition and conflict are inherent in this world; Security is paramount; • A state’s definition of its national interest is the key to how it conducts itself globally; Every state has right, if not obligation, to protect its interests; • There is something called “a balance of power” among states; • Force, under some circumstances, is a legitimate way to defend a state’s interests; • It is better to achieve the lesser evil than to sacrifice everything for an unobtainable absolute good; • Prudence, or the ability to judge the appropriateness of a given course of action based on the likely political consequences, is the supreme value, and; • Diplomacy is the most importance tool for reducing tension and solving inter-state conflict. Importantly, political realism does not glorify war or conflict, nor does it reject the possibility of moral judgment in international politics. The dominant American figures articulating these values, and influencing both how the United States conducts international relations and how international relations is still studied in most colleges and universities today, include people such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel P. Huntington, Henry A. Kissinger, Hans

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Role of Trust in Sino-American Relations CHANIS, Jonathan

Morgenthau, and Kenneth Waltz. It should be noted that none of these five are anti-Chinese, especially if this is understood to mean a belief that China is some evil force determined to dominate world. Two of these figure, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger are in some ways even profoundly pro-Chinese, at least in the sense that they think Sino-American relations can be conducted in a manner that safeguards both Chinese and American interests, and promotes global peace and prosperity. It also should be noted that the United States did not develop these values and beliefs in a vacuum. In spite of the fact that some in Europe are now uncomfortable with political realism, this American orientation developed from deep within the European and Western tradition. There is a along chain of thinkers, starting with Thucydides and running through Thomas Hobbes, and Niccolò Machiavelli that contributed to this tradition. More contemporary European thinkers would include E.H. Carr, Martin Wright, and Hedley Bull. In terms of political action, American political realism sees its European roots in statesmen like: Otto von Bismarck, Benjamin Disraeli, Klemens von Metternich, and Cardinal Richelieu. Over the last few decades, American political realism has been challenged by other schools of thought, especially over things like the “devaluation of force,” the rise of non-state actors, and the increasing importance of economic relationships and resource dependencies. But at the end of the day, political realism has adapted to many of these “liberal challenges” and come out stronger. By integrating concepts such as “interdependency” and soft power by thinkers such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, political realism remains, de facto, the dominant paradigm of policy makers and most of the U.S. foreign policy elite. While no person or country has the right to insist that others accept their core values, I would suggest to you that if Chinese policy pays more attention to U.S. foreign policy values, then the prospects for resolving many

of the problems in Sino-American relations would increase. Instead of China saying “there is no reason … to distrust each other,” let’s just publically recognize that there are many reasons for the United States and China to distrust each other. Instead of China saying “a huge deficit of strategic trust lies at the bottom of all problems between China and the United States,” let’s maturely accept the nature of inherent conflicts of interest between the two states. Instead of China saying we need to “build a new type of great-power relationship,” let’s recognize how the international states system evolved and deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. The values inherent in political realism developed over hundreds of years in reaction to the evolution of the international state system. Various behavioral norms and codes of conduct were produced to lessen the dangers produced by a world of sovereign states. We may hope for a better world, but as is often said, hope is not a policy. The rivalry for power and influence, particularly in East Asia is inevitable. Let’s accept competition, particularly peaceful competition, and work hard to stop it from deteriorating into conflict. If we are going to wait for the establishment of trust before we cooperate, then we are in a great deal of trouble. The threat to Sino-American relations does not stem from mistrust. The threat stems from insufficient efforts to communicate and cooperate in spite of the mistrust. So let’s stop diverting the conversation and wasting our efforts by talking about mistrust. Let’s get back to the business of diplomacy and realistic appraisals of each other’s interests and the actions that each state can expect from the other. Political realism’s emphasis on diplomacy and prudence is an important roadmap for doing just this.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Role of Trust in Sino-American Relations CHANIS, Jonathan

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Scripture Reasoning for Dialogue YANG Huilin (楊慧林)

Conflict Resolution Through Dialogue of Core ValuesConfucian and Christian Perspectives Scripture Reasoning for Dialogue YANG Huilin (楊慧林) World Order in Catholic Social Teaching CHRISTIANSEN, Drew, S.J. The Remaking of World Order and the Role of Chinese Universal Values GUO Yi (郭沂) The Possibility of Creating a Truly Global Ethics SWIDLER, Leonard J.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Scripture Reasoning for Dialogue YANG Huilin (楊慧林)

Scripture Reasoning for Dialogue YANG Huilin (楊慧林) YANG Huilin is the Vice-President of Renmin University of China (RUC) and Professor of Religious Studies and Comparative Literature. Comparative Literature

hank you everybody. My dear colleagues, to be honest I did my homework carefully last night, so please just allow me to read whatever has been prepared in order to save some time. The text of my proposed presentation has been already delivered for the organizers, focusing on the religious dialogue in the framework of Scripture Reasoning, which is promoted by some theologians in the West since the 1990s, in which Chinese scholars have been also deeply involved. Anyway, the panel discussions yesterday were so impressive for me that I was stimulated to further relate my original concerns to the theme and context of this colloquium, which would probably lead us to some challenging questions, specifically, at least for me, why people are not so tolerant in talking of tolerance, not so peaceful in searching for peace, and why there are so many horrors, or even conflicts among communities who are supposed to share similar or same values. In any sense, I believe Scripture Reasoning is really a typical case to trace back the generation and transformation of the so-called core values. Increase anything I think there has been a long tradition of exegesis, or interpretation of the Biblical writings, whose goal is to explore the original meanings of the Scripture, Bible, or sacred books through various interpretation and just interpreting the Scriptures to establish its authoritative or legitimate values. The reasoning in the reading of the Scriptures actually began with the formative process of the Bible. For instance, in the New Testament, only four times was Jesus himself recorded using his mother tongue, which means, surprisingly, that the words of Jesus himself

which have come down to us whether they are in Hebrew, Greek, English, or Chinese, are only translation. Although some exegesists believe that everywhere behind the Greek text we get glimpses of Jesus’ mother tongue, but they have to admit that at the same time that the task of translating Jesus’ sayings into Greek necessarily involved many changes of meanings. So we also read from Biblical writings that a letter of Christ was written not with ink but with the spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on the tablets of human hearts; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Based on this proclamation I think the singular meaning and the explicit interpretation of the Biblical texts might never have been existed. Understanding the Christian faith and the Christian Scriptures from this perspective has opened a large space for exegesis, or interpretation, and implicates the possibility of reasoning or debates in searching for values or meanings. Historically speaking, reasoning in the reading of Scriptures has certainly included debates on orthodoxy and brutal fights over power. But anyway, fundamentally speaking, once the Scriptures can be read, interpreted, and debated, it must lead to two logical conclusions: 1. When Scripture is offered for reading, it is hard to maintain an orthodox or definitive meaning. 2. When Scripture is the Scripture as such, it is accepted as something absolute, exactly in diverse interpretations. Thus, just as the theologians have repeatedly told us, when people attempt to explicate the absolute truth, they are inevitably relativized by the truth. When they hope to truthfully refer to the ultimate truth, even the theoretical statements

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Scripture Reasoning for Dialogue YANG Huilin (楊慧林)

have to acknowledge their own limitation and relativity as human beings’ statements, or otherwise they can only obtain a fails conception of orthodoxy. The theme of reasoning in the reading of Scriptures has given rise to a contemporary trend known as Scripture Reasoning. If we say that historically, reasoning in the reading of Scriptures was primarily an exegesis within the Christian tradition, then, we could also say, the Scripture reasoning has bridged the gap between values, faces, and initiated in reading the Christian Bible, alongside with other religious resources, including Jewish Torah and Islamic Koran, and some of the Chinese classics actually. Such a comparative reading of the correlated and overlapping scriptures recorded in different religious traditions seems to be resulted in two points at least: 1. People discovered that the presence of the similar perfectness might be variously identified. 2. We should eliminate any pre-assurance in phrase of name? so that it is through our recognition of imperfection but not through our self-righteousness that we can hope to approach the truth. Along with some Chinese scholars, were involved in the discussions of Scripture Reasoning. Another rich resource closely related to the Westernized sense of sacred books has been gradually recognized, that is, the Chinese classics translated by Christian missionaries with detailed and parallel commentaries in the perspective of Christianity or theology. Interestingly, it is found that when the missionaries attempted to borrow the conceptual tools of the West to name the names within Chinese thought, they simultaneously brought Chinese ideas into Western conceptual system. As some commentators remarked on James Legge, one of the best translators of Chinese classics, in perspective of, of course, anything, some commentators remarked him that in his translating and explaining the learning of the East to the scholars and the missionaries of the West, he was actually a missionary to his own people and race first. And also, in this procedure, Chinese classics, religious or non-religious,

were re-interpreted into the sacred books of the East, or of China, as the series of publications edited by Max Müller, in the late years of 19th century. An often quoted dictum or motto became the precondition of religious studies: “That he who knows one, knows none”. Consequently, I think, in the dialogue as well as the argument of Scripture Reasoning, something both challenging and encouraging has been mutually accepted as follows: First, Scripture Reasoning should be a wisdom seeking engagement, in which the diversely involved voices cannot be integrated into monologue. Therefore, it is without authoritative overviews, without original text or without native speakers in Scripture Reasoning and nobody exclusively owns the final meaning of the Scriptures. 2. Scripture is dynamic but not a noun sitting there and waiting for our interpretation. So, in the more legitimate talk of Scripture, we are actually talking about its emergence and semantics in its reading, understanding, translating, and interpreting. Theologically, it is to find the perfectness where it is not, to find the possibility in the impossibility. 3. Scripture Reasoning will help us gain a better understanding of others, as well as our own classics and tradition. What is highlighted in the end is the value and ideal that is about any part in the dialogue, and any of us is only something being constituted in Scripture Reasoning but not constitutive. In phrase of the French philosopher Alan Padue, “In other words, Scripture Reasoning is an absolute humility against any attitude of priority, including individual priority, ethnical priority, cultural priority, ideological priority, and also religious priority.” In this case, tracing back to the tradition of Christian theology, I think a very interesting phrase is normally introduced in talking of justice, that is, commutative justice, or to be justified, or to be accounted as justice in passive voice in New Testament. In this sense, I think Scripture Reasoning not only stimulates the mutual reflection among different traditions, but also reconstructs the selfunderstanding of each tradition. It not only

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Scripture Reasoning for Dialogue YANG Huilin (楊慧林)

reveals the similar perfectness, but also deconstructs the monologue through dialogues. It not only helps us understand differences, but also witness the perfectness in the differences. It might be the very premise, or precondition, to break down the narrow-minded identity position, or politics of identity, whatever. And uncover our values in a pluralistic context. In this sense, I think Scripture Reasoning or reasoning in the reading of Scriptures as such should be the fundamental spiritual basis for any dialogue, including Sino-U.S. dialogue. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

World Order in Catholic Social Teaching CHRISTIANSEN, Drew, S.J

World Order in Catholic Social Teaching CHRISTIANSEN, Drew, S.J. Drew Christiansen, S.J. is the former editor of America, a national Catholic weekly. He is the incoming Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Global Human Development at Georgetown University and is currently a visiting scholar at Boston College

am delighted to be with you this morning. I am grateful for Dr. Patrick Ho’s invitation to address you on Catholic social teaching and world order. Dr. Ho and I have known one another and worked together now for a decade. I am especially pleased to contribute to this dialogue on core values. Too much of the work of academics and independent think tanks on China-U.S. relations continues to be focused on competitive models drawn from Cold War geo-politics. Our colloquium aims at building mutual understanding and respect through exploration of the basic values of our respective civilizations. With the expansion of mind and heart that comes from such exchanges, we can hope not only our governments will avoid miscalculation and conflict, but also that our two peoples will establish bonds of friendship and peace with one another. For me as a Catholic and a Jesuit, it is particularly appropriate that we undertake our exchange as a new papacy unfolds. Pope Francis has made “dialogue and encounter” the hallmarks of his ministry. While dialogue deals with ideas, propositions, judgments and practical commitments, encounter looks to the face to face meeting of people, where they experience the humanity of one another, their dignity, and their freedom. In recognizing the dignity of others, we come to respect not only their values but also their freedom, and so can move forward together in genuine friendship. It is also propitious that we meet on the 50th anniversary of Pope John XXIII’s death and of his best known encyclical letter Pacem in Terris,

“Peace on Earth.” “Good Pope John” was a pioneer of détente, opening new relations with the Soviet Union and the Italian Communist Party. He also served as an intermediary between Presidents Kennedy and Khrushchev in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis. John insisted that the human person always comes first, and so we should distinguish, on the one hand, between people and even the movements they belong to and, on the other, the ideologies which divide us. We should always be ready, he insisted, to appreciate the good ideas others have to offer and to work together with them for the common good. Pacem in Terris and Political Order Pacem in Terris, I use the Latin because that is the name by which it is usually known. Pacem in Terris is the founding document of modern Catholic teaching on political life. Together with the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Church in the Modern World and the Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, both issued in 1965, Pacem in Terris set the parameters for the Catholic Church’s teaching on political life today. Pope John revolutionized Catholic thinking about politics, grounding it in the rights of the human person, and expanding the horizons of political thought at that time beyond the rivalries of the superpowers to embrace a global horizon. At the conclusion of the letter, he identified a new norm for Catholic political theology, “the universal common good. The common good is a norm Catholic thought had inherited from classic Western philosophy.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

World Order in Catholic Social Teaching CHRISTIANSEN, Drew, S.J

It had been applied to the city-states and empires of the ancient world, to medieval city-states, and then to the nation-states of the Westphalian political order. John argued that in our times there are problems which exceed the capacity of any single nation or even a set of nations bound by treaty to resolve. They are problems affecting the whole human community. Obvious examples today are environmental problems like global warming, but there are others as well, like human migration, that defy our traditional models to control and direct. In a globalized world, capital moves about freely in mirco-seconds but people do not, but both refugees and migrants seek new homes, and to date governments have failed to address the problems of global migration. There are other problems like nuclear disarmament in which the whole human community have a stake but for which there is no adequate structure to bring about. John’s writing of Pacem in Terris was precipitated by his role in the Cuban Missile Crisis and nuclear disarmament was an issue of the global common good he singled out in his day for attention. In this year of preparation for the review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is time we made progress toward that goal with new measures that will bring nuclear abolition within our reach.

rights, like the right to self-determination and equal rights for minorities, it is important to understand that the Catholic conception of rights differs from the Liberal conception. The better known Anglo-American Liberal political tradition sees rights as an individual matter and rights as for the most part absolute. The Catholic tradition in which John wrote, by contrast, sees rights as personal, and persons, as the philosopher John MacMurray argued, are persons only among other persons. Human beings are social animals and rights are realized in society. For that reason, in the Catholic tradition the rights of persons may be adjusted, particularly so that the whole society may enjoy an equal minimum level of basic rights. A key role of government is to facilitate the coordination of those rights between different sectors of society. A classic example from the 1960s is land reform. Private property is not sacrosanct. Property owners have obligations. Governments are permitted, therefore, to re-distribute land from large holdings, so that small farmers may have sufficient land to support their families. Today we would be more likely to talk about the distributive effect of taxes. In the interest of enjoying an equal level of basic rights, therefore, taxes may be legitimately used to re-distribute income in the interest of eradicating poverty.

Rights and Politics

Socialization and Globalization

Pacem in Terris, as I said, made the rights of persons the basis of all political order. All political authority is directed to the promotion, defense and safeguarding of those rights. The ancient justification of government, the common good, is re-defined as the protection of those rights. This applies to authorities at all levels: local, regional, national and international. Anticipating the Responsibility to Protect by 40 years, John argued that when any official or level of government fails to defend those rights or directly violates them, then other political authorities have an obligation to do so. While the tradition supports some collective

Another implication of humanity’s social nature is our inclination to from groups, associations, organizations and polities. The Second Vatican Council called this process “socialization.” The Church has an eye for the ways in which humanity organizes and reorganizes itself. It sees these as natural processes that should be encouraged to the extent that they promote human flourishing. For that reason, to outsiders, at least, it may seem that the Church is unduly bullish on globalization. It is true, the Church is positive about the collective processes called globalization: technological, economic

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

World Order in Catholic Social Teaching CHRISTIANSEN, Drew, S.J

and social. It regards them as normal processes of social beings networking to enhance their personal, professional, social and political lives. The Church is not without criticism of those processes, however. Pope Francis, for example, has expressed concern over high-levels of unemployment among young people, and Pope Benedict, for his part, has thoroughly criticized the financialization of the economy in ways for the failure of financial services to invest in the real economy and serve the men and women who depend on it. But, on the whole, Catholic social teaching regards globalization as a normal, though vastly intensified, process of socialization. Here is where we come to a core value. In the Catholic tradition, human beings are intended for communion with one another. That is their destiny. The test of any new development is whether it advances or impedes persons growing in relationship with one another, so that they may grow in knowledge and love in ways that reflect each person’s freedom and dignity. At the Second Vatican Council, the Church defined itself as an instrument of humanity’s union with God and of the unity of the human family. It also declared that the two ways in which the Church serves the world are through the promotion of rights and the advancement of the unity of the human family. So, it has an inherent disposition to favor organizations that promote peace and the unity of the human family. World Order and the Universal Common Good The church’s role as an effective symbol and instrument of the unity of the human family brings us to my last point: World Order and the universal common good. The Catholic tradition is always balancing two tendencies: the need of people to have as much direct control of their lives and livelihoods as they can and their tendency to organize

to more effectively realize what they cannot realize in small groups or to achieve things which of their nature exceed the capacities of individuals, small groups, states and even existing international structures to achieve. By myself, I may play a violin, but before sythesizers at least, I needed an orchestra to take part in a symphony. Both tendencies are united in the principle of subsidiarity, the idea that activities should be carried out at the smallest level compatible with attainment of that good, but that when the smaller units are unable to achieve their goals, then government or some overarching entity should intervene to support them in order to achieve that end. Thus, education is a duty that first falls to families, but as the demands of appropriate education develop, first the local community, then regional governments and finally national governments are required to support the educational process. Thus, in explaining his proposal for a global authority to regulate global financial institutions, Pope Benedict and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace have been at pains to explain that regulatory mechanisms should be coordinated with suitable autonomy and responsibility at every level. Arguing for global regulation doesn’t mean support for a unitary global state, only for so-called “regimes” of governance that are sufficiently broad and integrated to regulate financial institutions which themselves have instantaneous global reach. In the same way, Pacem in Terris offered support for the United Nations as a system of institutions. Those institutions are imperfect and in a state of ongoing development. The civil war in Syria was a clear instance of the international community’s incapacity to protect a people from violations by their own government. While resolution of the conflict by outside force has always seemed unfeasible, other aspects of the Responsibility to Protect are only now being called into play, with increased support for refugees and moves to acquire humanitarian access to the displaced

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

World Order in Catholic Social Teaching CHRISTIANSEN, Drew, S.J

and other victims of the conflict. After this crisis, the improvement of mechanisms and protocols for the Responibility to Protect, would be a major instance where the universal common good would require development of new transnational instrumentalities to carry out the responsibilities of governments under R2P. From the viewpoint of Catholic social teaching, the purpose of any global authorities is like that of national authorities and local ones: to uphold the dignity of people and enhance their ability to enter freely at greater and greater depth into community with one another. The complexification of the world under globalization is at once a help and a hindrance to that end. For the Catholic Tradition globalization enhances our ability to be persons in community and ultimately realize conditions that bring us into communion with one another as people with people. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Remaking of World Order and the Role of Chinese Universal Values GUO Yi (郭沂)

The Remaking of World Order and the Role of Chinese Universal Values GUO Yi (郭沂) Professor, Department of Philosophy, Seoul National University

ho can unite the world? Toynbee said: Chinese civilization! He said, after the collapse of Roman Empire, the Western world has never retrieved the political unification. Since then, the Western political tradition is not cosmopolitanism, but nationalism. Therefore, the West cannot fulfill the political unification of the world. At the end of 1970’s, when China was in Culture Revolution, Toynbee made a surprising judgment: the one will unite the world in the future is not a European Country, nor a Europeanized country, but China! Why? On one hand, Chinese nation has rich historical experience; on the other, it has a longstanding world spirit. In this presentation, I would like to interpret and prove this judgment. 1. the Experience of Ancient Chinese Organicising World Scholars noticed that, compared to other countries of the world, ancient China was very special. Liang Qichao梁啟超 called it “anti-countryism”, “super-countryism”, “cosmopolitanism”. The British philosopher Russell believes “China really was a cultural body, not a country.” In my opinion, this uniqueness of China, its difference from a country, is all due to it being a society where the world was seen as organicising. Among the concepts held by Chinese ancients, one which largely corresponds to the Western words “world” and “globe” is tianxia天下 which literally translated means “under

sky”. The literal meaning of “under sky” is “everywhere under the sky”, meaning every inhabited place, thus it referred to as “Chinese world”. Tianxia as “Chinese world” and Western “world” have indeed differences. The latter means the limits of the space made up of different countries and regions; it is a loose system, with each part relatively independent, even mutually repellent, while the former is a united and complete body. Although we can say it is made up of different states and regions, the different parts are subordinate to the unifying embrace of the Chinese world. That is to say, the concept that the Chinese world embodies is a world merging into an organic whole, an “organicising world”. After striding into the threshold of the civilised era around 4000 years ago, a stable and enduring core civilization gradually came into being in the vast spaces of China. The spread of this civilization to the surrounding still uncivilised regions naturally formed the Chinese-world” and “Chinese-organicisingworld” concepts. In 221BC, Qin’s unification also laid the basis for political unification. 2. the Confucian “Worldism” What is the world spirit in ancient China? It was embodied in “worldism”. Almost all of Chinese schools maintained a “worldism” stand. Among them, Confucian “worldism” was the most complete system. Its main points were as follows: (1) Tian (sky, Heaven, the source of myriad

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Remaking of World Order and the Role of Chinese Universal Values GUO Yi (郭沂)

things) and mankind uniting as one天人合一, the myriad things flowing from the same spring萬物同源 – the philosophical basis of Confucian “worldism”. The concept of unity of Tian and mankind meant that mankind and the myriad things had the same origin, so mankind should cherish, and live with, them. By the time of Northern Song Dynasty, Zhang Zai張載(1020-1077) pointed out explicitly: “The people and I are of the same womb, the myriad things and I likewise”. Also, later, Wang Yangming王陽明(1472-1529)said: “The great man takes Tian, earth and the myriad things as one body, he sees the world as one family, China as one person.” (2) Datong大同 or the Great Harmonious Togetherness-- the Confucian social ideal for the Chinese organicising world. In Liji 禮記or The Record of Rites, Confucius elaborated on his ideal society. It was a world for the common good—a “great harmonious togetherness” society: “When the grand Dao or the Way is followed, a public spirit reigns in the world; people of virtue and talent are appointed; they speak with credibility and cultivate harmony. Thus people do not limit love to their own parents, nor treat as children only their own children. The aged are secured till death; the able-bodied are employed; the young are able to grow to maturity; there is compassion for the widows, orphans, childless, disabled and diseased, so they are all sufficiently maintained;……We call this the great harmonious togetherness.” (3) Wangdao王道or the kingly way - the way to realize wordism By the Warring States Period, Mencius clearly advocated applying “virtuous government”德治 of the “kingly way”王道 to control the world, and opposed especially warlordism霸道 that relied on armed struggle to secure advantage. The so-called “kingly way” and “warlordism” represented respectively “worldism” and nationalism. (4) He [harmonious interaction] and not tong (bare togetherness or similarity)和而不同–the Confucian pluralist principle for the Chinese

organicising world Confucius said: “In using the ceremonies, he is precious”; “The superior person is he and not tong. The inferior person is tong and not he”. So-called he is the uniting together of different things, arising out of a harmonious attitude. So-called tong refers to the adding of a type of thing, and looks very monotonous. Summing up, the basic distinguishing feature of Confucian “worldism” was peace, harmony, and opposition to the use of force to achieve the Chinese organicising world. 3. The enlightenment from the ancient Chinese organicising world and Confucian “worldism” The ancient Chinese view of an organicising world was, in fact, in a comparative sense, a type of globalisation. To sum up, the lessons of Chinese experience are undoubtedly helpful in advancing the healthy development of globalisation in the present era. The most important thing is that the ancient Chinese organicising world tells us that globalisation is something that can be achieved by peaceful means. Next, one must have a correct regard for how local knowledge converts to general world knowledge. In the process of the unification in ancient China, Confucian, Taoist and Legalist thought, changing from local knowledge to general world knowledge. Based on their advantage, they played different roles in the different levels and areas of the united culture. I believe the same things will happen in today’s globalization. In terms of culture advantage, if culture can be divided into spiritual culture, institutional culture and material culture, I think the advantage of Chinese traditional culture lies in the spiritual culture, while the advantage of Western modern culture lies in the material culture. As for institutional culture, the Chinese and Western civilizations are equal. If the modern Western politics is

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Remaking of World Order and the Role of Chinese Universal Values GUO Yi (郭沂)

democratic, the Chinese traditional politics is aristarchy or elite governance. 4. The Ideal Politics Churchill ever said: “The democratic institution is very bad, but other institutions are worse.” In the era of globalization, can we establish a political institution better than democracy? The author proposes that in terms of framework, a new political institution should be built creatively on the basis of the combination of the Western democratic politics and the Chinese traditional elite politics. During this process, the Confucian conception of “concentrating on rule of virtue supplementing by rule of law” deserve our attention. In terms of the politicians’ qualities, the Confucian idea of “sagely inside and kingly outside”內聖外王 should be adopted, just as Confucius said, “if a ruler makes his own conduct correct, what difficulty will he have in governing? If he cannot rectify himself, what has he to do with rectifying others.” In terms of political strategies, it’s important to learn from Taoism, especially the political conception of wuwei (to govern by doing nothing, noninterference) in politics.

Daoism -- ziran自然(origin-like, beginninglike) Confucianism -- renyi仁義.ren: love, benevolence, humanity; yi: appropriate, righteousness. Buddhism--cibei慈悲. Ci: bringing everyone happiness; bei: removing everyone’s pain. Among them, taihe and ziran embody the cosmic laws. Therefore, there’s no doubt that they are universal. Renyi and cibei reflect human nature, thus its universal value could not be denied either. It should be noted that the universal values from the Chinese civilization could supplement and correct the defects of the universal values from the Western civilization. Obviously, all of above core values are Chinese universal values that derive from different belief systems and belong to final values, while Western universal values like freedom, equality, democracy and human right can be attributed to common values like social values, political values, and etc. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

5. The Chinese Universal Values and Their Role in the Future Human Civilization The major civilizations in the world, whether western civilization or other civilizations, all have revealed the universal values in different cultural domains. There are four thought and cultural systems that can most embody the Chinese values, namely, Zhouyi周易 or the Book of Changes, Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism. Personally speaking, the core values of the four systems are: Zhouyi -- taihe太和tai he (the great harmoniousness)

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Possibility of Creating a Truly Global Ethics SWIDLER, Leonard J.

The Possibility of Creating a Truly Global Ethics SWIDLER, Leonard J. Founder and President of the Dialogue Institute; Professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue, Religion Department, Temple University

want to talk about two things. They’re huge, so I’m gonna try to speak fast. I’m sorry for the translator, or the interpreter. I want to talk about dialogue. I spent over fifty years in that field, interreligious especially, but interideological also, Christian, Marxist dialogue for many, many decades; and also then, as Rebecca indicated, about a global ethic. First of all we all know, or we probably do, that dialogue comes from the Greek dia-logos; “dia” meaning between, together, across, “logos”, of course, primarily means thinking, like logic, secondarily, words, the way we express our thinking. But I’m quite convinced that dialogue is not limited to thinking and speaking, as the word indicates, but rather the whole cosmos really is fundamentally dialogic. Think about it. On the macro level, we have matter and energy; everything is matter and energy if it were only one. Or one swallowed the other, we would have ended up with a black hole, we wouldn’t have the universe that we have. We have this universe because it is fundamentally a dialogue between matter and energy. On the micro-level, the tiniest atom—now we’re talking about gluons, which are vastly tinnier—they are a combination, they are a dialogue between the positive and negative forces. Proton and electron, again, a dialogue back and forth. Fundamentally, the whole physical universe. Then we think about ourselves, as human beings. We are also, fundamentally a dialogue between body and spirit. When there is only body, there is no humanity. We are just dead

meat. If we are only spirit, we are not humans; we are angelic. I haven’t met an angel but I mean that’s what we would be, if we are only one; but in fact, we are fundamentally at dialogue. Further than that, we humans are a dialogue between male and female. No dialogue on the physical level, in one generation, no humanity. Further than that, we are also a dialogue between the individual, the person and the community. We cannot be human if we are not in community: that is the only way we can develop as human beings. And yet the community as such doesn’t exist except for the sake of the person. That’s the raison d’etre of community. So it’s fundamentally dialogic, all the way through. I would suggest that we have basically, when we talk about dialogue today, we have four main arenas in which we humans engage in dialogue, or should engage in dialogue. One we already referred to, what I call the dialogue of the head. Here we come to talk with, listen to those who think differently from me so I can learn. The first hundred thousand years, we’ve done it the other way around: I’ve got the truth, I’m gonna talk with you. If you think differently from me obviously you’re wrong, I’m gonna teach you the truth. We now are beginning to realize that truth is always partial: we can only grasp it and articulate truth—a statement about reality, that’s what we mean when we say “truth”--, we can only grasp it and articulate it partly. You see that side, I see this side. I can describe it accurately from here and you from there, but they are not both

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Possibility of Creating a Truly Global Ethics SWIDLER, Leonard J.

the same. They are both truths but they are all limited. That’s necessarily the case so now we are finally realizing that I need to be in dialogue with you who think differently from me so I can learn that because dialogue is mutual, you vice versa. Now that’s the dialogue of the head where we seek truth. There is also the dialogue of the hands where we join hands together to work for the good, for a better world; so we don’t have to agree on everything but we can begin to work together to solve the local problems of schools, of plumbing, of air—whatever. This is the dialogue of the hands, much easier for us to come together on that level than the dialogue of the head. Then there is the dialogue of the heart, which I think is at least twofold. One, of course, is everybody appreciates beauty, whether it’s words, song, music, architecture, painting, dance…everybody loves beauty; and each of us and each of our cultures expresses ourselves in beauty. Here we can meet the other in the easiest fashion. Go through the door of beauty. Listen to, look at beautiful Chinese paintings. Listen to um watch beautiful dance…whatever. And vice versa. Some of the very best Western musicians in the world are Chinese. This is the dialogue of the heart. Then there is the other dimension, the depth dimension, the spiritual dimension. It’s very interesting the mystics of the world have no trouble in joining together because they have gone into the depth of their spirit. Here too is a dialogue. That way we have to pursue the spirit together. So there is the dialogue of the head, the dialogue of the hands. We search for truth with the head, and we search for the good with the dialogue of the hands. The dialogue of the heart, the aesthetic beauty. The fourth is we must be integrated persons, we must be dialogians with each other, within ourselves. This is the dialogue of the whole. They all sound like they are “h”s. The last one was W-H-O-L-E, but it’s very interesting our English word “holy” fundamentally means “whole”, W-H-O-L-E; it

comes from the Greek “holos”, which means to be “whole”. So to be a holy person doesn’t mean to be going around with folded hands, it means to be a full, healthy, whole person. Now that’s what I wanted to say about dialogue. There’s a lot more, but we’ll stop there. I want to talk specifically about a particular type of dialogue which Rebecca alluded to, namely, ethics, the action: What is the good? In fact when we talk about core values, the word “value” really means “what is the good?”, what do we decide is the good thing to do rather than the bad thing; and we want to then set up an organization in community, which is going to foster the good for all. I want to suggest that one thing will help us; it’s not everything, it’s not a panacea, but I would suggest it’s a kind of “sine qua non”, something we must have, a necessary but not sufficient cause for the good for the whole world, namely, a global ethic. Let me tell you how I came to this notion, notice I use the word singular, “global ethic”, not “ethics”, deliberately. 1991 my friend for over fifty years Hans Küng wrote a small book— for him very small, 250 pages. I’m reading the third volume of his memoir right now, there are 750 pages. Some people said on the Internet he’s talking about suicide; forget it, Hans Küng isn’t gonna—he’s gonna go out with his boots on. In any case, he wrote this book, Project Weltethos, Project World Ethos, and he sent me a copy and I happen to be teaching it at Temple University of Japan at the time, my wife and I. When I read it in the late fall of ’91, I thought, “Wow, this is a great idea he was pleading for: the world needs a global ethic!” And I said then, wrote an editorial and got Hans and a number of others to co-sign it, and we publish it in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies and a number of other publications at the same time. This was saying that what will be a help to producing a global ethic would be to attempt to articulate, spell out in words and thought, what a global ethic would be. And in fact, we then proceeded to do that—both Hans did and I did, with groups of people. What a global ethic is, it’s not something that somebody imposes

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

The Possibility of Creating a Truly Global Ethics SWIDLER, Leonard J.

from the top; it’s not a complete set of ethics; it would not, for example, include the question of abortion, all kinds of debate about that, and lots and lots of other issues. What a global ethic is simply, what in fact we find that all of the religions and ethical systems of the world agree on as fundamental principles, very basic, fundamental principles. This is not something that a philosopher sits around in his room and thinks about; but rather we go and look and we talk to people, we talk to ourselves and we find out that in fact, we have A,B,C in common; we don’t have D,E,and F, whatever they happen to be. That A,B,C, which we find we de facto have in common, that is the global ethic. Well then you might say, ok fine, so what. Most people do not realize that most people in the world share a global ethic, a fundamental set of basic, ethical principles. Most of us don’t realize it. That’s what this whole institution is all about, China Energy Fund Committee; “Core Values”, that’s another nice term for basic, fundamental, global ethic. I want to suggest that it is very important that many, many, many people come and talk together and in the dialogue put down in writing what they understand to be my basic principles of ethics that I think everybody else agrees with. And you test it. And you will find out what in fact everybody else agrees with and what they don’t. This is very critical. Now Hans did that with all kinds of consultations. I happen to do it also; I was working with a Jewish, Christian, Muslim group of scholars for many years and many years, we did it there. A graduate student seminar of mine: the students got so enamored of the idea they created their own. I think that many, many groups need to do this. I would invite the China Energy Fund Committee to set up a group, Chinese and Americans, to work on this, and they would come up with their articulation of what they think in fact are the fundamental ethical principles that they all agree on and they believe everybody else would too. I would suggest that the Berkeley Center, you know, the Georgetown University, do the same sort of thing; Renmin University, Beijing University; Temple University already did it in

the form of my graduate students, and I would suggest it doesn’t have to be just universities. A company, a neighborhood, a church, and then put them all together, and if it turns out that the wording in the end synthesized to where all the agreements are turn out to be the one that was signed in 1993 in Chicago, hooray. If it turns out to be somewhat different, also hooray. It would then be a much wider consultation, but what’s more important it wouldn’t be Leonard Swidler’s collection of people who put this together, it wouldn’t be Hans Küng’s collection of people who put this together, or my graduate students—it didn’t include Rebecca, did it? [Rebecca: it did]—it included Rebecca, I’m sorry, I take it back-- but rather, everybody who engaged in that dialogue will have put in this commitment. Can I ask the computer person to put up-right, there it is. This is just a place to start: globalethic.org. If you could scroll down a bit you see that there are about two dozen organizations that we found on the web that deal with global ethics in one way or another, on all different sorts of levels. So I invite you all to please join in creating a really global, global ethic. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Sino-U.S. Relationship: an Ideology Perspective XIANG Lanxin (相藍欣)

Hegemony, Multipolarity or Non-polarity The Future of History Sino-U.S. Relationship: an Ideology Perspective XIANG, Lanxin (相藍欣) If Liberal Democratic Values are in fact Universal, then Whither China? DALY, Robert Confucian Value of Righteousness in Cultural Context KIM Kwang-ok (金光億) America the Philosophical and China ROMANO, Carlin

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Sino-U.S. Relationship: an Ideology Perspective XIANG Lanxin (相藍欣)

Sino-U.S. Relationship: an Ideology Perspective XIANG Lanxin (相藍欣) Xiang Lanxin is Professor of International History and Politics at the Graduate Institute of International Studies (HEI), Geneva. He held the Henry A. Kissinger Chair of Foreign Policy and International Affairs at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, in 2003-04.

think what I am going to do is to discuss basically the context of U.S.–China relationship from the ideology perspective. Then, of course I will also discuss some specific issues. If you want, we can also discuss some policy related, but primary purpose for me here is to explain ideology context of that relationship. About six years ago, I wrote a small book with the exact same title “Ideology Context: U.S.–China Relations”. The title is “Tradition and Chinese Foreign Relations” but I have a subtitle. At that time, I am sure many readers… This is published in Beijing, and very few people seem to understand what I am trying to say. I tried to draw attention to the framework of misunderstanding, which is deeply rooted in the ideology at the time when most people think the ideological war is over, and most people think there is no need to drive ideological into the fight between the two countries ever again. Today, as we can see, the ideological context is playing more and more important role in the Sino-American relationship. What I can see is that most of the strategic mistrust or strategic misunderstanding of each other has deep roots in this context. Let me put it simply, I think this is an enlightenment United Stated versus a fast restoring China. Then of course, if you take European Union into consideration, I would say that is a different relationship. That is between a restoring China, meaning restoring tradition roots, and a post-modern West, this is the United States. That means the European

Union is very much beyond the European Enlightenment ideology. Yesterday, I think the most interesting presentation, for me, is by Cardinal McCarrick. He was talking about, if you want to reduce misunderstanding, the first thing you have to do is to talk to each other. But that is not enough. That is the first step. Then you have to talk with each other, and then start understanding comprehension. Finally you find a place where you can accommodate each other. Now, in terms of foreign policy, foreign relations, my judgment is United States and China so far, we are still at the first stage, not quite talk to each other yet. They are trying to talk to each other. Both sides, I am not going back to long history of U.S.-China relationships. Simply saying, if you look at recent years, both sides made enormous efforts, and tried to come up with some over-arching concept to set the framework of U.S.-China relationships. On China side, we have some attempts at the beginning of Mr. Hu Jintao’s administration, something called peaceful rise. Americans’ corresponds was enormous enthusiasm. With Robert Zoellick speech in 2005, he talked about a concept of responsible stakeholder. Then China decided that this is not a good idea. They abandoned both responsible stakeholder and peaceful rise. Then follow by, for example, Mr. Steinberg, Deputy Secretary of the State, who tried to come up with this idea of strategic reassurance. Would it last even shorter? My calculation is less than five months.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Sino-U.S. Relationship: an Ideology Perspective XIANG Lanxin (相藍欣)

Then of course, Chinese recently, began to propose some other over-arching concepts. At Sunnylands, my understanding is between Mr. Xi Jinping and President Obama. The discussion supposedly on China side expectation, we are going to focus on something ten thousand meters in the air, the broad issues as I say, grant vision things, that is the question. China Dream, that is Xi Jinping’s new concept, more importantly, so call the new type of the great power relations between the United States and China. But that seem to be going absolutely no way. So far, I have not seen any progress on that. So, why this is happening? Why they are talking different languages? They try to make efforts to understand each other, but seem to be almost impossible for them really to talk with each other on those critical issues. What is the nature of US-China relationships? Here I think, my view is that first of all, it is the analytical framework of the United States that is primarily at fault. This is my judgment. That is American is the last true believer of European Enlightenment, which one of the most important result in European Enlightenment is to create a political theology of democracy, freedom, human rights. I emphasize the term theology, because it is more than just a political theory. Well, the second speech I said I like very much is Jose Casanova’s. He said very clearly yesterday that the United States may not be one single church, United States Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. But the entire nation is a church and that church sticks to a political philosophy. Colloquially, it’s called American Dream. That is why I think Mr. Obama will never accommodate Mr. Xi Jinping’s China Dream for that matter. But it is with a theological dimension. So here I think concerning the U.S.-China relationships, the implication is very clear. If the regime is not democratic, according to the western standard, it can never be a legitimate regime, no matter how you try to redefine it. There is no other alternative, as I say. Now, if universalism has a multiple dimension, again you know we

had a debate yesterday with Jose, whether we have multiple universalisms. If we accept that position, of course the whole idea of the American political theology probably cannot be apply to the Chinese setting. What I can see is inalienable rights, there are two pillars here. Inalienable right which is based on a concept “men created equal”. Now, who created it? If you are Chinese, we have to ask question. You need review religion to understand, that to begin with. Chinese happened to be a very unique group of people who painstakingly kept their family record. They are almost fanatic about keeping their family history. They know where they come from. Now, when you say created, who created? Of course, we know who created. But then the meaning in American constitution is different. The equality. Everybody is equal before God or before creator. So that is a very different complementarity. I very much doubted that Chinese can compromise on that point. The second thing, of course, is social contract, which is one of the most powerful weapons during the enlightenment. What is social contract? There is no social contract. If you use it, it is a figurative speech to explain obligation. That’s all fine. But again from Chinese point of view, they cannot believe something that has no a single shred of historical evidence. Either “men created equal” or the social contract. So if you take even one of those pillars away, the American political theology is in trouble. And American theology is in trouble now. I happen to believe that the United States is probably entering a face of constitutional crisis. I may over-state it. So here I think if you do not accept any alternate regime as a legitimate. How are you going to conduct a relationship with that regime? First of all, you start with very high moral ground of course. Your attitude must be patronizing, basically think what you should do. Never ask question like why you should do. For example, China, well, everybody is talking about the United States democratizing China. That was taking for granted as the inevitable. I called inevitability thesis. How many people

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Sino-U.S. Relationship: an Ideology Perspective XIANG Lanxin (相藍欣)

ask question why China needs a Western democratic system to begin with? Then we have to be very careful to analyze. So I think this is the most powerful obstacle between the United States and China that is focusing on the question of legitimacy. I do not want to explain more in details. I just finished a book, which is just simply titled “Legitimacy, China and the West in the 21st century”. I do not want to get too much into it. The second point I want to emphasize about the U.S.-China misunderstanding. All the problems, the deep roots here, aside from policy itself, is historic version. America, I would argue, it is firmly an Anglo tradition or Anglo-American tradition to seek one particular universalism about the great power behavior in history. This of course is the theory of rise and fall. The rise and fall logic of great powers, this is a tradition goes back at least to Edward Gibbon, and of course Arnold Toynbee, Paul Kennedy, and many other scholars who followed the tradition, tried to find what they think is universal truth during this process of rise and fall great powers, the second coming, the one supposedly going to take over the first place might behave. Then of course reference are usually the European histories. So I think this is another example of a typical mentality of analytical framework that applying local history, a personal experience to a global experience, try to determine what China is going to do, or what China is doing. Because China supposedly is going to take over United States’ position, therefore United States has to do A, B and C. First of all, we have pivot, which is one of the worst concept Obama administration ever created, pivot to Asia. Second, we have an economic weapon of mass destruction which is now being built with a clear deterrence value. What I am referring to, is TPP and the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). Why I call it economic weapon of mass destruction? They think there is a deterrence value. It was force China to do things China would otherwise not do in their external

economic behavior. I think, these are, in my view, based on misjudgment. The United States suddenly decided to push this project so hard. I was at a conference just before this conference. I have two-day conference on that TTIP. I had a good fight there with those evangelists who promoting the concept of TTIP. But I simply saying, do not underestimate China’s ability being resilient in dealing with any new trading investment systems that whatever power was created. Here I want to end my argument about the way to understand China, we need a historical vision; we need to understand all universal values are contingent, has historic context. If we do not overcome that, there is very little chance that China and the United States can really understand each other. Let me argue also just one point. I came to this conference, thinking so many catholic priests here. But I learn quite a lot, I begin to realize that probably there are only two reasons to understand China in these two contexts, history and the analytical framework. One is Pope John Paul II, of reading his speech at the Matteo Ricci four-hundred country’s anniversary in Macerata. Then of course is the French former President Charles de Gaulle’s “eternal China” rather than look into China in a short run. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

If Liberal Democratic Values are in fact Universal, then Whither China? DALY, Robert

If Liberal Democratic Values are in fact Universal, then Whither China? DALY, Robert DALY, Robert is the Director of Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Center for Scholars

would like to address this morning two of the questions that were put to our panel in preparation for this symposium: “Is liberal democracy applicable to all countries?”, and obviously we are thinking here especially about the Chinese case; and 2. “Can Asian values and cultures have a foothold in the world?” That was the wording of the question. So first, “Is liberal democracy applicable to all countries?” Before I address this I’d like to point out this question is distinct from the question “Should China adopt liberal democratic institutions?” This is not a prescription; this is not a “should”. It is also different, answering this question is different from the argument that you’ve just described as “inevitablism” in asking whether it is thinkable, it is possible, that China could become liberal democratic. This is not—I’m not engaging in prophecy, I’m not predicting whether it will or not, nor am I prescribing, I just want to consider the question of whether it could be applicable—liberal democracy—to all countries and of course, to China in particular. Well, whether it is applicable or not, I think it is true that all but the most isolated countries, any country that wants to participate in modernity, must now answer the challenge posed by liberal democracy. It must have a response to the questions that the existence and the spread and the success of liberal democratic institutions, specifically an answer to the questions that those facts raise. And this is so not because Americans or Westerners wish to impose their values on other countries although of course some Americans

and Westerners do wish to do that, but that’s not where the question arises. The question arises because the forces of globalization are now inspiring citizens of integrated countries to raise questions about liberal democracy themselves. This is why the question is worth considering, not because Americans wish to prescribe liberal democracy for China. What are these questions? We hear them all the time. Can we enjoy greater civil liberties? Can we build civil society? Can we have a multiparty democracy? Can we enjoy full freedom of speech? These questions arise in countries that don’t yet have these things. Such questions of course are asked in different ways in different countries with varying degrees of urgency. But there is no illiberal, undemocratic nation with wide exposure to liberal democracy where such questions are not asked at all; and I think we should note that this dynamic interestingly it doesn’t work in both directions. Why don’t citizens of liberal democracies, upon contact with authoritarian countries, advocate for reduced freedom? The fact that they don’t suggest to me that liberal democracy and the lack of it are not simply two sides of a coin. They are not choices the way that wearing black at funerals and white at weddings, or white at funerals and red at weddings are different kinds of choices. People are usually not indifferent about which side of history has flipped face up in the country of their birth, liberal democracy or its opposite. That I think might suggest that these are matters of preference, they may or may not be matters

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

If liberal democratic values are in fact universal, then whither China? DALY, Robert

of progression; we need to consider that. So these questions about transitioning to liberal democracy are often accompanied by another question, also very urgent. Can we enjoy the fruits of liberal democracy, selectively or in total, while retaining traditions that have defined us, the values and practices by which we recognize and interact with each other? Big question: Does change invalidate the past? Does a change in tradition insult our common history? Our traditions are important. Dorothy Day, one of the founders of the Catholic Worker Movement, she said, “Tradition gives our ancestors a vote in the affairs of the living. It is democracy for the dead.” Tradition is important. Of course in some families and some countries tradition can also be the tyranny of the dead; this can vary, style counts. But this question of course has a fascinating and a tortured history especially in China, and in much of the world this question of whether we can be modern and in some senses liberal democratic and also true to ourselves is a vital question. It’s a matter of life and death. It’s one of the frustrations that inspires much of the terrorism that we see in the world today. So governments faced with these questions from their own citizens that answer in the negative, that wish to continue to deny liberal democracy in some form to its people usually do so for one of two reasons: they either 1. They claim that aspects of liberal democracy are desirable, in fact that some aspects of liberal democracy, for example, democracy itself is a goal, is their goal, but the time for those things has not yet come due to national conditions. Yes, these are in fact goods, we desire them, we are moving toward them but not yet. And this has been the Chinese government’s answer for most of the past thirty years. But it’s always been a somewhat difficult answer conceptually for the Chinese government to give. It’s a difficult answer because this statement that we are moving toward freedoms or toward democracies is somewhat at odds with Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong thought, and other goals that are professed as goals of China; and

the claim that our goal is liberal democracy in some form, a form suitable for China naturally, a form that takes account of China’s history and culture is our goal but not yet. It’s also a tough answer to give because it raises the questions about timelines and milestones: Ok, if our goal is democracy but we’re not there yet, how will we know when the time has come? Who gets to decide? What are the steps? What are the milestones? The Chinese government doesn’t want to answer those questions. The second kind of rebuttal that governments give to questions raised by liberal democracy, and this now seems to be the preferred answer of the Chinese Communist Party, there has been a shift, especially over the past year; the shift is going from the claim that “Yes, we also desire these things but not yet”, to a new claim that “The claims and standards of liberal democracy don’t and won’t apply in China, because China is fundamentally different from liberal democratic nations.” So this brings us to the universal values debate, the whole question of “普世價值” that has been discussed in China. And China has moved from claiming initially that “Universal values don’t apply to China”, to now I think the more coherent argument that “Universal values, which are broadly liberal democratic, are not in fact universal at all; they are particular to certain countries and certain cultures, so there are no such things as universal values, and not only are these values particularistic or parochial, and therefore relative and rejectable, they are also weapons in a plot aimed at harming China.” This has been the movement among public intellectuals and much of the work that can be published in China. So, the Chinese government’s answer to the first question, “Is liberal democracy applicable to all countries?” is currently an emphatic “No.” China instead posits two distinct—at least two distinct—sets of values. There are Western, liberal democratic values, and there are Chinese values, and of course, by implication, there are Venezuelan values and Icelandic values…there are all that we have is a series of different parochial values to choose

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

If Liberal Democratic Values are in fact Universal, then Whither China? DALY, Robert

from in this scheme; and one of the ways this gets expressed in my personal conversations with Chinese friends, one of their objections to the American view, and some of you have probably heard of this, is “How is it that America argues for diversity at home, but against diversity of thought and systems and intellectuals abroad?” My own view is that this is a somewhat specious argument, I don’t think that it holds up particularly well, but we can go into that in Q&A if you’d like. So, the Chinese government’s difficulty, I think, even with its current answer, is that globalization, or forces of globalization, now presents both sets of values, Chinese and liberal democratic, to Chinese urbanites more or less constantly. They can see that they are confronted with these systems almost every day and faced with these two sets of values, the question of whether individuals can choose between them, or more likely and probably much better, can blend them for their own purposes---that’s the more exciting, creative possibility. But that question of whether individual can choose arises naturally in China. You don’t need a foreign plot; you just need sentient beings. That’s all it takes. This is the way that the world has gone. Now, if it turns out that the individual can choose, then he or she probably already is a citizen of a liberal democratic country. But if the citizen cannot choose, that’s the answer. If he or she is required by law to live forever in accordance with a particularistic set of values, then in my view, we aren’t really talking about values at all. We’re talking about what people must do to avoid punishment, we’re talking about authority; it’s not a discussion about value. So what is value? We’ve---I don’t know if we went into this yesterday or not. If an object or idea is to be valued, it must first be evaluated. Our judgment is engaged. It must be compared. An evaluation has to be made by the evaluator based on the object or idea’s relative degree of desirability. It’s supposed to be done with reference to some implicit or explicit standard. So evaluation in other words must be based on choice. To value is to choose. No individual

100

choice, no values as such, which is to say that values require some degree of freedom; and if that is true, then the Chinese government’s claim, “I think that Chinese values are so deeply intrinsic as to be inevitable, as to be beyond choosing,” to me doesn’t make much sense; how is that a value at all? Well you may think I’ve just set a trap, that this is unfair, by defining values in terms of choice, in terms of freedom; by describing freedom as an essential feature of values haven’t I tipped the scales unfairly in favor of liberal democratic values before we even weighed the two arguments. I don’t know, maybe. I was up last night trying to figure that out. But if you want to make that case you will need a definition of “values” that doesn’t require evaluation, so that’s going to be tricky, but that particular argument may hinge on etymologies that are peculiar to English; if so, please tell me during Q&A, enlighten me about the etymologies of “價值” and how there is a distinction here. But to ask the question another way, “Forgetting about values and evaluation, are there core Chinese values to which the development of liberal democratic institutions in China would be fatal?” Are they out there? And if so, let’s be specific. What values are they? What makes them core? What aspects of liberal democracy threaten them? Is it the free flow of information? Is it the independent judiciary? Is it constitutionalism? What is it? What is it? So, second question we wanted to ask is can Asian values--cultures and values-have a foothold in the world? And I think the implication of this question is, “If liberal democratic values are in fact universal, then whither China? What happens to the things that Chinese people and many non-Chinese people love about this country? Are these values and cultures applicable?” I think that they can gain a foothold and I hope that they will. I think that it’s essential to the rest of the world that they do, if these Chinese values can be clearly identified, if they are unique, if they enable human flourishing, and if they are in fact living traditions in China today. It

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

If liberal democratic values are in fact universal, then whither China? DALY, Robert

doesn’t do much good as you know this week for example, for Americans to preach about the wonders of the American system of democracy when we see enormous problems, we may make that argument again but not quite yet, we’ll wait a little bit. Are the Chinese values, defined for us this morning as 泰和自然，仁義，自卑are these actually living traditions in China today? Or do they come from a past that has been overtaken? So, as was mentioned I’ve been---I lived in China for eleven years, I’ve been working with it for thirty years; Chinese culture, the Chinese people, have deepened and enriched every aspect of my life, certainly my faith, my sense of humor, the ways I think about aesthetics, my experience of language, my sense of my own body, my own physicality, the ways I treat people, the ways I listen…and this is a debt I can’t repay to China, I can’t hope to repay to China, so I guess one of the things I want to say today is 謝謝, thank you. It has changed everything and this is an experience that I hope more Americans can share. Filial piety just to take one example, which is an awkward word in English, it was something we had to find a translation for, and it was the idea that the forms, the ways you treat people, matters very much to signaling your regard for them. And Americans tend to think that it’s- regardless of our behavior and the forms we observe--it’s what’s in our hearts that counts. Chinese don’t love their parents any more than we do. I love my parents, so it doesn’t matter whether I attend to their body temperature, whether they’ve eaten or drunken—or had a drink yet. I think that the Chinese are right, these forms matter. And so learning about filial piety didn’t help me love my parents any more, but it has made me a better son in a real sense every day, and my parents feel the difference and they know where it comes from. So there are things the U.S. can learn from China: filial piety, cherishing the elderly, spirit of patience, humility, and self-sacrifice. 中庸之道，無為，這是一個政府管理的一些方式, the wisdom of the Chinese folk tradition, Chinese folk stories, the Chinese consciousness of historical processes

are all very valuable. There are also things that I think China has to learn from the West, things that are mostly recent developments in the West: feminism, psychology, environmentalism, individual rights. There’s a lot we can learn. But maybe, and I realize I’ve got two seconds so I’ll go a little faster, maybe these are the wrong arguments, maybe these are the wrong discussions. I’m actually very confident that there is nothing in the best traditions of the West that threatens the best traditions in China, and vice versa there is nothing in the best traditions of China that threatens the West. We have much to learn from them. What does worry me is that the best aspects of both traditions are being obliterated by international consumer culture, which reduces all of these fascinating questions of value to questions of mere price; and the cost of this I think will be extremely high for everyone who values their culture and their personhood in China and the United States, whether we reckon that cost in U.S. dollars or in Renminbi. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

101

Confucian Value of Righteousness in Cultural Context KIM Kwang-ok (金光億)

Confucian Value of Righteousness in Cultural Context KIM Kwang-ok (金光億) KIM, Kwang-ok is the Professor Emeritus of the Department of Anthropology, Seoul National University.

es I feel a bit out of place because I’m an anthropologist surrounded by many distinguished philosophers and also, I’m an anthropologist and also I’m a Korean surrounded by many Chinese and Americans here. Anyway, as an anthropologist I’m ambivalent toward politics. I always emphasize importance of politics and thus the draw of politicians. But at the same time, I do not trust the rhetorics that politicians enjoy to produce. Our main theme is world order but for me world order is a, is to be based on power relations---political power, economic power, or military power. So and core value is related, something related with culture. Although we emphasize importance of culture, especially intercultural communication, it’s not easy to answer the question “How we can culturalize or civilize the power-based or power-oriented world order system?” because culture needs a longer period of time to be implemented, but politics always deals with matters just in front of us so this gap of time is always very much a burden for us so we must discuss how to implement culture which needs long time to politics. Anyway, with this in mind, I would like to pay attention to the fact that recently, especially in and concerning China, such words as justice, 公平, or fairness--or justice, fairness, 公平公正正義公義大義, have come to dominate public discourses, not only in people’s everyday lives, society, but also in the fields of national and international politics. Focusing on the notion of “righteousness” or “justice” (yi義), I would like to attempt an anthropological discussion on the

102

discrepancy between yi義as a model of principle produced by political and philosophical discourses, and yi義as a political value interpreted in everyday life context of the people. Well, the value of righteousness, or people would say social justice or public idea of justice, is very much important to characterize the quality of the society concerned and also it is very important to define the international relations and we try to find the notion of righteousness from Confucianism. So sense of justice is related with the sense of human being. In the world of common people in China it is quite usual to hear the words like “human being”, or “being human”, this very important notion, the meaning and value of being human in this contemporary modern world, capitalist world. When they disapprove---I mean in China---, they would say, “How dare he or she does or did that act as a human being?” When they approve some act they would say, “Well, it’s quite natural for a human being to do in that way.” In this respect we can say that the Chinese always concerned with the meaning and the value of being human in the everyday life context. Well so yes I would like to talk about the relationship between the value of being human and righteousness through the Confucianism, Confucian ethics, and the other one is, something about historic consciousness for mutual understanding not only between people but also between the nations and also with the intercultural understanding I would like to talk something, briefly, about the conversation between Confucianism and

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Confucian Value of Righteousness in Cultural Context KIM Kwang-ok (金光億)

Christianity, successful story of that in Korea, for your reference. Well, according to the common people in China, social justice is more important than legal justice because social justice is publicly defined by popular consensus while legal justice is politically implemented by the state and even some people criticize the legal process, legal justice, is only for those powerful people or the group of people in the state only; well some sometimes well so only, according to their explanation, only when a society becomes a community of people who are morally complete, righteousness or justice becomes realized. Confucius teaches us that the quality of proper human being is achieved through complete morality. Morality of human being can be achieved through continuous cultivation of the self, through which one equips with ability of promoting virtue, generosity, love, sympathy, and forgiveness etc. and keeping and practicing public justice in the neighborhood, righteousness. Well, here we see the Confucian teachings of relations between oneself and world outside his or her self, that is, 修身、齊家、治國、平天下. A human being can maintain a family only through cultivating his or herself properly, and a nation can be properly maintained or ruled only when the constituent families are properly maintained. When a nation is properly ruled, then the whole world can be properly ruled or maintained. An individual here, the individual person is therefore responsible for the orderliness of the whole world; so relatedness, or being related, 關係, starting from, and focusing on the individual is core concern of the Chinese, we can say. To maintain or not to damage the good relations or personal reputation and social face 面子 is so important that people would attempt multiple thinking in evaluating one’s behavior. They count one’s status and position in the community, one’s life history in relation with the society one belongs to, social contributions one has made, prospect of future life and so on before they make a final judge in relation with their criteria of social justice and righteousness. Therefore, we see quite often that in China,

people do not proclaim their principle of act before an action is strictly taken. After an action was taken, then they come forward to evaluate the act by considering what kind of effect the act intended will bring to people who are mutually interrelated as members of community. I think this sometimes makes some misunderstanding or trouble between Chinese and Americans or the Western people. So, in this context, one may argue the issues of a rule by man, 人治，and rule by law, 法治. Well, often rule of man is criticized by lack of objective and rational judge; however, we need to understand that man, 人，here means man of cultivation with high degree of morality, not natural or morally undefined man, so this is misunderstanding of Confucianism. So for Chinese or people of Confucian morality, human being is incomplete so that man should cultivate himself toward the moral achievement. Incompleteness itself is not seen as shame; what we should seriously be ashamed of is that men do not try to overcome their incompleteness as Mencius was told. Before giving punishment then, it is desirable to allow the person concerned another chance to realize one’s own mistake and try to correct it. A virtuous man, a great man, or civilized prince, so called in Chinese, 大人，exercises sympathy and generosity toward the inferior others while being very strict and stern toward himself. And so how to practice Confucian ideas and contemporary society is most urgent problem for us. We don’t want to talk about just classics, Confucian classics, as was just interpreted in ancient society but how to implement it in modern society. For that, I introduce briefly the case of Korea, Confucianism or Confucian culture in Korea. Korea shows us a very interesting different scene of practice of Confucianism from China. During the Joseon period, which right around from 13th century to early 20th century, they tried to practice the ideal state, nation, of Confucianism, so righteousness was very much important then and lots of institutions to limit the power of king. On the one hand the king was the ruler, was the absolute being, but

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

103

Confucian Value of Righteousness in Cultural Context KIM Kwang-ok (金光億)

at the same time his power was much, much limited, and one is, the most of thing is the system of appealing. Anyone can appeal to the king and king must replied. If king denies to reply, then another one come up to appeal, to persuade, or even criticize the king for his behavior. And sometimes during the 500 years of the Joseon period, some kings were expelled from the throne because he was disqualified, not to be a proper Confucian scholar, different from China where the emperor is the son of Heaven, he didn’t need to be a Confucian scholar, but in Korea, king must be one of the scholars to cultivate himself continuously with other scholars. This tradition came down after generation after generation, until today, that it is quite natural for anyone, anyone who wants to become the public figure in the field of politics and some other field, he or she must go through very strict examination of his, well, the cleanness in terms of morality. Well this is still, I think this is one of the basic element for socalled Korean democracy, and this we can see; this is also something related to public or social justice, the righteousness, the sense of righteousness. So the so-called combination of Confucianism and Western imported Western system of democracy so sometimes, some of my Chinese colleagues would say, “Well, we have our own idea of Chinese democracy which is different from Western democracy” but through the Confucianism, you can combine this, this we can see from the case of Korea. And the other one is something about historical consciousness. For me, the Chinese have been ambivalent toward Western countries. Well, America, Great Britain, and France and Germany are the imperial powers in the past, well these countries are the source of modernity and development for China; and at the same time, these countries are invaders and plunderers of Chinese culture. So on the one hand they love and respect America very much and well of course England and Germany, but at the same time they are very fear and even hate. This ambivalence is reproduced in the name of patriotism and rediscovery of national self. So

104

how to understand, to make mutual understand, of this in-depth historical consciousness? That is the core problem for us. Sometimes Western people, some of Western people, appear not to be very understandable and sympathetic to the scars or wounds of history of Chinese people deep in the mind and this also Japanese, the relationship between China and Japan also, they very much rely upon this historical trust and mistrust and some Western people will support politically, out of political interest, Japan, when they conflict in terms of historical consciousness between Chinese and Japanese. So in order to make really ideal world order or the international relations, we must serious or sincere to understand the historical background of the nations concerned. And lastly, I say although Korea is fundamentally Confucian country, now, predominated in terms of population by Christianity, but we can say, although Christian, he or she would say I’m Confucian Christian, or Christian Confucian. So because, except the existence of God, there are lots of common between Christian teaching and Confucian teaching so there is compromised; and now, this Christianity and Confucianism is combined together, combined to make kind of Korean sense of social justice and democracy and so on. Because of time I should finish here. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

America the Philosophical and China ROMANO, Carlin

America the Philosophical and China ROMANO, Carlin Critic-at-Large of The Chronicle of Higher Education

hank you, thank you to Tu Weiming for his kindnesses toward me and for inviting me here, and to the Fund, I hope you should keep doing this forever, I think it should be a core part of your public work; it’s a wonderful meeting, very stimulating. I think I’m here because I did a book last year called America the Philosophical and it’s an attempt to understand the American people as a philosophical people, what they care about, how they operate with regard to argument. One of the key things that I emphasize in the book is the importance of freedom of expression to America being a philosophical culture and I’m going to come back to that in my remarks. I want to say one thing first about freedom of expression in the United States. If you look at one of the great books about this subject called Free Speech in an Open Society by Rodrick Smolla, S-m-o-l-l-a, one of our great jurisprudential scholars, he makes the point that the founders instantiated freedom of speech in the first amendment not because everybody would vote for it in favor of every other value but precisely because they wouldn’t, because people are willing to sell off freedom of speech for other values that are more important to them, security, food, and so on. So it had to be given a very elevated place in the American system of government precisely because people would try to water it down, break it down. And in his book, in his introduction he gives the famous three principles for why freedom of speech is important. 1. The market place of ideas, that if we want to know the truth about anything, we need to allow people to speak freely about things. 2. Because individuals everywhere care about it. They may not care

about it in public but in private they do. They want to be able to speak. You may not want the other person to speak but you want to speak. And the third that for politics you can’t figure out how to do politics in the best possible way unless all the voices are heard, unless people can point out what’s working and what’s not working. So I just put that in the air before I come to what I would like to do as both philosopher and journalist, some conceptual analysis and then some dealing with hard facts in this area. I was glad that Robert talked about value because I want to come back to value also at the beginning. You know, in philosophy “value” is often what we call a reified concept, it’s a false noun, it’s not an object in the world. We look at actions and behavior in the world and we create a noun, “value”, a kind of object that explains why someone acts the way he or she does, or why an institution does. Now, it’s important to know that when we make an accurate, convincing judgment about values it requires looking at a whole scope of behavior, not just what a person or institution says it values. People lie, institutions lie, states lie. As a famous survivor of Khomeini’s Revolution in Iran caustically observed many years afterwards, “The problem with the Islamic Republic of Iran is that it is neither Islamic nor Republic.” So in assessing the core values of any group or institution, the principle is actually the opposite of the famous principle of the Italian playwright Pirandello, his principle “It is so if you think so.” The principle in assessing values is, “It isn’t so just because you think so or because someone says it’s so.” The other key distinction I want to put forth about values is between the values of a people and the values

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

105

America the Philosophical and China ROMANO, Carlin

of its government. I think that it goes without saying that the values of a person must always be assessed on a case by case basis, and most of us do this with other people that we meet. What we unfortunately do too often is to identify the values of a people with the value of its government. As a journalist and as a philosopher, I personally hate it when the news media consistently referred to China, or the United States, or Syria when what they really mean is the Chinese government, or the U.S. government, or the Syrian government. People do not always get the government they deserve or one that expresses their values. I think Syria is a good example of that. Syrian people for a very long time have been able to get along with one another except on the extremes. So when two extremes started to get active, the extreme that wanted to protest against Assad, and I’m certainly not criticizing them for doing that, and then Assad himself who decided the way to deal with it was to kill all his enemies, you end up with a society now that is at one another’s throats, where the values of the extreme are increasingly becoming the values of everybody. Now, the problem with a lack of a freedom of expression in a culture is that you can’t really tell what values the people hold, and I’ll use here as an example Russia, where I was a correspondent and a professor of philosophy for three years. Just as I don’t like the media’s identifications of peoples and countries with their governments, I hate the way the Western media would make a ritual reference in their stories to how popular President Putin was in public opinion polls. I didn’t know anyone--and I asked all my Russian friends--who would tell their true opinions to a public opinion researcher in Russia. You don’t know where they’re coming from, you don’t know what their connections are. The idea that Vladimir Putin was extremely popular seems to be completely false but it’s what people would often tell a public researcher for safety. In a society with limited free expression and a government that punishes dissent, you cannot tell what the people actually think, at least not through public surveys. So to

106

ascertain that is very difficult. So noticing-noting that this problem of ascertaining true values is not just the problem of getting people to speak the truth because they may not be speaking the truth, it turns out that we can’t learn the truth either by reading their actions, because people in a society in which one pays the price for deviating from accepted action often and even usually, decide not to pay that price. They act in ways that privately may cause them shame, but publicly keep them safe. So let’s say provisionally that this is a fairly common sense picture of how value operates in the real world. How does it relate to world order? Here I will submit in the few minutes that we have we should understand world order at a minimal level as world stability, how the world should operate at normal times not crisis times. One reason everyone avoids war so fiercely—everyone sensible—is that it collapses stability, and all the things we hate and don’t want---injustice, death---increase. Those with memories of a real war are often the ones who resist it the most. I think that you are seeing that for instance in the Secretary of Defense Hagel, you see it in Secretary of State Kerry. If you’ve been in a war you know how unfair it is to everyone, how terrible it is. So where do these thoughts lead me in regard to the questions we were asked to address in this panel? I always say to my students on papers, “Oh this is a nice paper but you didn’t answer the question.” So let me try to address the questions in this brief time. Is the liberal democratic system of government of the West applicable to all countries? I would take out “of the West”—that seems to you know shift the question a little bit—and I would say “Yes” and I would agree with the thoughts that have been expressed here that there is a difference between saying “Could they be applicable?” and “Should they be applicable?”. I myself am a Universalist; I do believe they should be applicable. As I mentioned yesterday I think I have been in more than a hundred countries as a journalist, I’ve never found a single country in which people didn’t care about what Professor Li was

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

America the Philosophical and China ROMANO, Carlin

talking about yesterday, the basic values, most people do want the same thing. Second question: Can Asian cultures and values have a foothold in the world? Yes. As mentioned I plan to spend the next few years exploring the topic for which I won a Guggenheim and going to be trying to do a book on the title that I provisionally called, Is there an Asian philosophy? It’s meant to be a little bit tongue in cheek but I think there are real issues behind that. Here I think an important way to ponder core values is to remember that there are something besides core values; we can call them “secondary values’, we can call them “peripheral values”. But the fact that you have core values as a person, or in a country, doesn’t mean that you don’t have those other values too. And as several speakers have mentioned, it is a matter of emphasis. I think it’s a mistake I’ve heard this said in various forms of this sort that you know, gee, the liberal tradition, the American tradition, it emphasizes just individualism, and the Chinese tradition emphasizes harmony. I think that’s false to historical text and tradition. Jon Stewart Mill on liberalism, he is not just talking about the individual, he is talking about the individual in regard to the rest of society. Yes the individual has freedom to put out his fist but it stops at the chin of someone else. He’s always thinking about the individual in the context of society. And I would say also when Mencius is talking about the famous example of the boy who might fall in the well and how an individual thinks about that, right? Some of the thoughts are well, it’s not because other people would criticize you, it’s not because of how society might react, so I think both traditions are always thinking about the individual and the community and society. An America in which individualism runs rampant would be a terrible place, and a China in which harmony runs rampant would be a terrible place. There should be a place for both emphases on the individual and the community. “Is the future international order likely to become unipolarized or multipolarized?” I think it is a falsehood that it has ever been

unipolarized. I think it’s impossible that the international order could be unipolarized. There’s always a lot of players, there’s always a lot of powerful players. So look at the United States recently in the Syria situation: Was it able to do what it wanted? Did it have to respond to other power players, particularly Russia? Of course. China will, no matter how powerful it gets, will always have to respond to other power players; the United States will, other countries will. So we do live in a world of multiple powers and that’s what diplomacy and international relations are about. “Will power diffusion involving non-state actors pose a greater threat to the world than power transition?” I certainly think there are many dimensions to this, I will just focus on one because I think the question is meant to make us think about terrorism in part, certainly the growth of terrorism and I would say the acceptability of terrorism as business as usual. I think the media contributes to this and many politicians do also. This is a huge danger. If we get used to the idea that it’s okay to set off bombs and kill innocents to make a political point we are really going down the tube as a world civilization and an individual civilization. We read these stories about Pakistan and Iraq today where every morning people wake up and they don’t know if they’re going to be bombed for no reason that relates to them---a horrible thing. So I think there is a duty on the part of all sensible people to reduce the collapse of values in regard to the protection of the innocent. The last question was “What tectonic shifts in world politics are to be expected in the 21st century?” And here I would say something that hasn’t been talked about a lot in this forum and is very important. It’s the issue of cyber-politics and I put it this way in regard to values: Will the concepts of property, theft, and privacy remain consistent between the physical world and the cyber-world? So everyone here knows about what’s been going on with regard to surveillance and United States attacking China for hacking into our systems, and the United States rightly getting attacked

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

107

America the Philosophical and China ROMANO, Carlin

for hacking into other systems, President of Brazil right cancelling on Obama because of the surveillance of her, Obama cancelling on Putin because of Putin’s support of Snowden. This is a really important area that’s not getting enough attention except when it breaks into the news briefly. In my book I talk about America as a philosophical culture in part in regard to cyber-philsophy. I have a long chapter in which I say the digital revolution is changing lots of traditional areas: religion, law, romance and so on. It’s also changing international politics. If we don’t find a way to make consistent our notions of property and privacy and theft, in the cyber-world, we are going to have not just disasters, we may have war. If one country gets into the military system of another country and is able to deactivate its weapons, and there have been rumors that countries are trying to do this, it can lead to precipitous action. So I have nine seconds left I think I will use them to say thank you so much for letting me be a part of this. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

108

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

War and Peace: can China and U.S. avoid the Tragedy of Great Power Conflict? HUANG Ping (黃平)

War and Peace Can China and the US Avoid the Tragedy of Great Power Politics? War and Peace: can China and U.S. avoid the Tragedy of Great Power Conflict? HUANG Ping (黃平) Liberal Communitarianism as a Global Normative Convention ETZIONI, Amitai Domestic and Foreign Policy Orientation of New Chinese Leadership ANG Rui (楊銳) China’s Rise, Not U.S. Decline GLASER, Bonnie S. China’s Third Knock on the Door of the World HO C.P. Patrick (何志平)

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

109

War and Peace: can China and U.S. avoid the Tragedy of Great Power Conflict? HUANG Ping (黃平)

War and Peace: can China and U.S. avoid the Tragedy of Great Power Conflict? HUANG Ping (黃平) Director General, Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)

eally, it’s my great honor to be invited. Actually, this is the second time to be in this important, intellectual dialogue between the U.S. and Chinese scholars, philosophers, thinkers. Amongst many U.S.-China dialogues, this is quite unique, I think, because we not only touch upon those very concrete policy issues, but rather go beyond. This session, I—we are going to discuss how U.S. and China can avoid, sort of, possible tragedy power conflict---great power conflicts. In my understanding, also limited knowledge about history, the problem, the tragedy, actually comes from the problem between the two good values, instead of good and bad conflict. So there are many worse confrontations, voluntary problems, not necessarily caused by material or interest conflicts, nor by this kind of good against evil, but rather in many cases, people fight each other, against each other, for good values. So this is really a problem I think still nowadays, to a great extent quite true. So if you look at the Chinese goals--China dream, whatever--, I don’t think we have essentially a problem with those great values, nor from those American values or so called Western values. The problem came from how we order them or prioritize them, emphasize which above others. As Weiming Tu in the first day emphasized so clearly, I think amongst many great values, the most influential set of values nowadays for all of us are the values since Enlightenment, also produced by those Enlightenment thinkers, such as freedom. But then, also for me—I have

110

discussed this for some years with colleagues, either in China or with colleagues out of China--, we also have been to a great extent trapped by such Enlightenment thinking, if not because of Enlightenment, but since Enlightenment, we had a kind of way of thinking which is still quite influential nowadays even when we deal with U.S.-China relations. Pardon me for very short, oversimplified generation— generalization, but basically those kind of ways of thinking since Enlightenment. One, is the very staged approach, staged sort of progress, or development. Each country, each society, each nation will go one step after another. Secondly, something also very much to do with this, kind of something I call the very binary dichotomy: the past versus the future, human versus nature, the subject versus the object, we versus the other, traditional society versus the modern ones, and state versus the society---civil society, West versus the rest, winner versus the loser and etcetera, etcetera, including realism versus idealism, capitalism versus socialism, democracy versus authoritarian or even dictatorship state. This way of thinking, to a great extent, put things to such two extremes which did not enable us to see the plenty of possibilities in between, between the two extremes, nor for us to see those even larger possibilities out of, beyond, the two extremes. This kind of exclusive, exceptional, or extremist sort of way of see the reality, if I can compare, but not necessarily say that they are again, another extreme, but amongst non-Western ways of

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

War and Peace: can China and U.S. avoid the Tragedy of Great Power Conflict? HUANG Ping (黃平)

thinking, traditionally, not necessarily only from China nor from Confucius tradition you can see such kind of way of thinking in India or some other even smaller cultures. For instance, one of the typical way of thinking is the yin and yang. Yin and yang sounds like good and bad, black and white, but actually, for yin and yang thinking, each is—either yin or yang—is a very necessary condition for the other; and also between the two there are plenty of possibilities in between. So it’s not just either you have got yin or yang, you have not only just have one choice, and thirdly, beyond the two extremes there might be some other possibilities. So all the ways, especially in these couple of days, we also have discussed about the tianxia, I should also say greatly thankful for Zhao Tianyang’s earlier analysis, but actually development of the idea of tianxia is more than just a kind of political arrangement, it’s also kind of way of thinking for us to see that for instance, not there is “under the tianxia” or “under the heaven”, there is no other, so it’s not like either you have “we” versus “the other”, they all are brothers. So open---It’s kind of such an open and inclusive approach to all. Second reason, it is the human beings, not individual human beings, are all this sort of selves. The very first day Mr.Ho has asked “What is the self?” I think under the tianxia, everyone belonged to such self; it a kind of gradual, incremental, recognition, and also expansion. Therefore, we enjoy, this is much more than just tolerate, enjoy the differences and diversities, both cultural differences and nowadays biodiversities. In end these two kinds of diversities for me are the very base for human—not only survival—but also the happiness. Because of such diversities, life can be meaningful and therefore, beautiful. All under the Heaven, there should---cannot be such clashes between good values. This is something I just make remarks or sort of comments from the previous days and today’s discussion. And now, let me go to how U.S. and China--can U.S. and China---avoid that kind of

clashes or conflicts. I think, first of all, we are—we should—recognize as someone from the first day half quoted the ancient Greek philosophy, “Man cannot get into the same river twice.” So even there have been so many so many such historic tragedies between great powers, you cannot necessary therefore say U.S. and China will have to have such conflict or confrontation. Very important, perhaps the most important base to argue for peaceful coexistence and even cooperation and win-win solution is we are actually in a very new age of some would call “globalization”. Globalization is for me---one of the very key dimension is the transnationalization. The nation state, on the one hand, are—all the nation-states are still very powerful and perhaps one of the most powerful organizations and institutions in nowadays world, but we have been much more than just nation-state: regionalization, for instance, transnational corporations, free flow of information, capital. Secondly, I think as Joseph Needham said, “We have now not only had the power shift from West to the East but also the power diffusion.” So instead of the players are the nation-state, we have so many non-state actors, also so many nontraditional issues we have to deal with, both nontraditional security and nontraditional development issues—sometimes they are overlapping, such as climate change. And finally, I would also argue perhaps instead of having the so called strategic trust first in order to have a more stable U.S.-China relations, we can identify some areas where we have shared or overlapping sort of interests. One more minute. So even we have very different sort of backgrounds, cultures, traditions, even values ---“If liberal democracy is good, even good for China or not”, if we can identify those shared or overlapping areas where we have shared interests and we can enlarge such interests with some ambiguity. It does not matter how clearly defined those, but if we can identify such, then the great two powers can cooperate and get kind of win-win solution. Secondly, if we need to go behind that kind of binary approach, winner-loser, specially not to

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

111

War and Peace: can China and U.S. avoid the Tragedy of Great Power Conflict? HUANG Ping (黃平)

link, for instance, if the U.S. is in decline or not, or if the U.S. is declining indeed is that because of China or because of China’s rise or not, so then as XI Jingping said, “The world is not enough for two of us to cooperate.” * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

112

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Liberal Communitarnism as a Global Normative Convention ETZIONI, Amitai

Liberal Communitarnism as a Global Normative Convention ETZIONI, Amitai University Professor and Professor of International Affairs; Director, Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University

o avoid the United States and China falling into the Thucydides trap, both nations will be served if they embrace a strategy of Mutually Assured Restraint (MAR). Political scientists argue that history shows, since the days of the ancient Greeks, that when a new power arises and the old superpower does not yield ground quick enough -- wars ensue. However, the record shows that there are no historical Iron Laws. Indeed, Harvard’s Allison Graham points to four cases out of 15 since the 16th century that were not war followed -- include the rise of the U.S. in the 1890s as a global power. To stop the current mounting mistrust and military buildups between the U.S. and China, given that both states face urgent domestic needs, some content must be injected into the vacuous phrase both powers now embrace: that China ought to have a “new kind of relationship “ with the U.S. MAR could do the trick. Accordingly, both sides limit their military build up and coercive diplomacy as long as the other side limits itself in the same way -- and the self restraints are mutually vetted. MAR is a strategy that allows China to take the steps it holds are necessary for its self-defense without extending them to the point that they seem to threaten other states and the global commons. It further enables the United States to take those steps it considers necessary for its self-defense, for living up to its obligations in the region, and for the protection of the international order. These steps would extend the concepts that underlie the U.S.’ SALT treaty with Russia to military buildup in

general and to diplomatic maneuvers. That is, they would be based on what President Reagan called “trust but verify.” One step that readily illustrates MAR is the act of capping the number of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) weapons, especially anti-ship missiles, that China holds in its arsenal. China holds that it needs these A2/AD weapons for self-defense; the U.S. views them as threats to the freedom of navigation in the high seas and to its ability to discharge its obligations to Taiwan, Japan, and other states in the region. Both powers should agree to limit the number and range of these missiles, that these limitations should be verified by agreed-upon methods, and that such short-range, defensive missiles might be provided to other states in the area, for instance Japan. Applying MAR to ICBMs may be impossible at this stage, as China holds that it is so far behind the U.S. in this category of weapons that it refuses even to explore a SALT-like agreement. However, in the long run, MAR may include what some call “strategic stability,” a cap on the ICBMs and similar strategic weapons by both states. To extend MAR to cyberspace, both powers might need to agree, implicitly, that the use of cyber tools for collecting information about the other powers is so deeply entrenched in international relations that it may well be impossible to end the practice. However, both powers could agree to restrain from using cyber arms for kinetic attacks. Such agreed-upon restraint would of course be subject to vetting.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

113

Liberal Communitarnism as a Global Normative Convention ETZIONI, Amitai

Under MAR, countries and territories on China’s borders would be treated not as contested areas that both powers attempt to include in their military alliances, but as neutral buffer zones--similar to Austria during the Cold War. This applies especially to the Philippines and Vietnam, as the U.S. has increased its military commitments to both of these states without sufficient regard to the fact that such involvements may drag the U.S. into a war with China over issues that are not part of the U.S.’ core national interests. MAR would particularly effective if applied to U.S. and China positions regarding the future of North Korea . Here, MAR would entail agreement from both sides that if North Korea’s regime were to collapse neither American nor Chinese troops would move into the country. Both sides and the world would be much better off if American troops were not based next to the Yalu River -- and if Chinese forces were not massed next to the DMZ. Given today’s technological means, the neutrality of such a buffer zone -- that is, the absence of military forces of both sides -- is relatively easy to verify. MAR need not be the only foundation upon which the future Sino-American relationship is built. There are several important areas in which both powers have complementary interests and in which they can work together, including nuclear nonproliferation, climate change, counterterrorism, and financial and economic stability. However, MAR could go a long way to prevent China and the U.S. from sliding toward the Thucydides trap. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

114

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Domestic and Foreign Policy Orientation of New Chinese Leadership YANG Rui (楊銳)

Domestic and Foreign Policy Orientation of New Chinese Leadership YANG Rui (楊銳) Host & managing editor of Dialogue CCTV English Channel

his year marks the 60th anniversary of the truce of the Korean War. I went to the Yalu River that borders the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in July and did a standup at the broken bullet-riddled Bridge that used to connect China and N. Korea. We meant to produce a special series to commemorate the end of the very first bloody regional conflict that the US had since the 2nd World War. But we were told not to broadcast the program on the sensitive day. No one told me why. Clearly this benevolent censorship delivered a solid message to those Americans who followed our consistent efforts to build a new model of major power relations. Namely, we do not seek to confront the US when our new regional or global stakes might challenge the existing postCold War order behind which the US is the architect. This abortion of our show came after President Xi Jinping and President Obama had met in Sunnyland, California. I regret deeply that this special television series was not put on the air because we wanted to address why this war could have been averted were we able to have a sound mechanism for dialogue in those days. By the way, the name of my program is called Dialogue. And I have hosted the show since 1999. I have done hundreds of radio and television programs on US-China ties. But, those that interested our viewers most were not just about the bombing of our embassy in Belgrade but how and why American Flying Tigers had come to our rescue during the Second World

War. We were allies. Today. We should both seek to navigate a new course of constructive relationship, a pivot to commonwealth and collective global governance, not just a pivot to Asia or to TPP. But, our two governments and policy makers do not trust each other. Our US policy had been prioritized on the agenda of China’s foreign relations since Deng Xiaoping. But I am afraid it is no longer the case since trust deficit threatens to tast our patience, our political will and to erode our groundwork. China, labeled a communist regime and autocracy, is increasingly questioned over its alleged assertiveness. We are surrounded by five US-led alliances in the broad Asia-Pacific Region. Secretary Clinton portrayed China as a nation that does not respect human rights at all. She was selling a self-fulfilling prophecy about China threat. US-led joint military maneuvers and surveillance activities took place frequently under our nose. China ends up opting for Russia as its strategic partnership. I am afraid US-China ties have slided to a position of less importance. Mr. Yang Jiechi, our top diplomat, said at one of his press conferences during our annual plenary sessions of the NPC, the top legislature, that the very close consultation between Moscow and Beijing on almost all critical regional and global issues has set a new and positive example in world politics. I believe this is a genuine new model of major power relationship. Does it target the US? I don’t think so. But, geopolitical

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

115

Domestic and Foreign Policy Orientation of New Chinese Leadership YANG Rui (楊銳)

reconfiguration is shaping the future of the regional security framework in Asia, and it covers Afghanistan in Central Asia and Syria in the Middle East. Sino-Russia military drills and the robust Russian arms sales to China highlight new dynamics in a changing international political order. But of course, we need oil and gas from the Caspian Sea and East Siberia. These two places are our energy backyard. A new Silk Road is taking shape. The US is not part of it. China is looking west to accommodate our stakes in central, south and west Asia. But the new Silk Road is being built in the shadow of the Obama pivot to Asia. China’s new geo-political and geo-economic roadmap serves as a hedge against the renewed US influence in East Asia. We do not target the US but we avoid head on collision. Our westlooking approach removes us from a collision course when the US vows to rebalance China. For us, Jihardists and Islamic extremism pose a threat to the stability in our Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. We must proactively help reconstruct a war-torn Afghanistan that the US abandons and we should do the job along with Russia, India and Pakistan as well as other major observer states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization following the zero option of US military drawdown in 2014. This is the joint mission of three permanent members of the UN Security Council, the US, China and Russia. We must work together to fight religious extremism, terrorism and separatism. Without a stable northwestern backyard, China would not sustain its social and economic prosperity. Now let me talk about our domestic economic dynamics and challenges briefly. Five days ago the Shanghai Free Trade Zone kicked off. No one should ever under estimate the vision of President Xi and Premier Li in engineering this pilot program in a very dynamic Changjiang River Delta region that covers Jiangsu and Zhejiang. This region would be the engine of China’s next stage of reform and modernization. Xi Jinping followed the political tradition of paying a tribute to our late senior leaders right after taking the highest

116

office since the 18th national congress of the CPC. He went to Shenzhen to review Deng Xiaoping’s legacy of toying with capitalism in a special economic zone. He came back with a faith that financial reform has to be done at a right time in a right place. Five years after the collapse of Lheman Brothers, China quietly pursues internationalization of RMB which only accounts for two or three percent of world reserve currencies. This is not meant to replace the US dollar despite its inevitable decline in value since its separation from gold in the early 1970s. We seek to have a basket of major reserve currencies based on the special drawing rights of the IMF. Zhou Xiaochuan, our top banker, who delivered this message five years ago. What we want to do in the free trade zone is almost everything except for free access to Facebook, twitter, prostitution and casino. Opening our capital account, liberalization of interest rate as well as exchange regime, and liberal financing for the non-public sector would be the bulk of reforms in the region. Deng Xiaoping said in the 1992 southern fact-finding tour that he regretted not letting Shanghai open itself up early enough to reinforce the momentum of the Pearl River Delta in Guangdong province, which is the earliest forefront of China’s reform. Xi Jinping took the message and rolled out his own ambitious blueprint 21 years later. We are establishing a consensus that the massive stimulus package of the previous Chinese government to keep our growth rate above 8 percent no longer works and is causing extensive loan bubbles, to say nothing of the devastating over capacity. China comes under anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations for its booming solar panel exports. Local debts and inability of local governments to issue treasury bonds have to be handled with a more liberal policy in the Shanghai free trade zone. Diversified sources of financing including private equity and trust funds must be employed. But we have to be very careful about risk control to avoid the kind of financial derivatives of Wall Street five years ago. Creative cultural industries such as our own digital

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

Domestic and Foreign Policy Orientation of New Chinese Leadership YANG Rui (楊銳)

Disneyland and Silicon Valley will flourish in this mega incubator. No one knows whether establishment of this experimental zone can be compared to a decisive game changer for China’s world influence. HK is afraid of being replaced as a regional financial hub in a tale of two cities. I am not alluding to HK liberals’ spasm of worries in seeking universal suffrage to reinforce its SAR competitive edge. China cannot afford to let HK decline, and HK will not, given its deep implications for Taiwan. One country two systems, as a liberal and flexible policy in HK and Macao, is being applied in the Shanghai free trade zone. I hope we could also copy HK’s ICAC, the independent commission against corruption, in projecting a clean image of a very bold and ambitious central government. We need to have an independent watchdog. Social justice through a more transparent rule of law such as the trial of Bo Xilai sheds light on a real mandate of Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang. The anti-corruption storm in September that is gaining momentum involves our energy giant, the state asset supervision agency, the railway ministry and the property market. But this campaign is not just battles but a war against some old institutions. China will not follow the Soviet path nor will it copy the shock therapy of Boris Yeltsin. The Arab Revolution will not happen in China since we have basically solved the issue of material shortage, lifted millions out of poverty, established our positive economic presence the world over, and, above all, terminated life long office of any politicians. Deng Xiaoping deserves the credit of George Washington in this particular regard. Hu Jintao wins respect with complete retirement. Due to time constraints, I would not make comments on China’s military buildup. But, let me emphasize that the burgeoning awareness of our global maritime-stakes does not mean we want to take over the center stage. I believe that China which benefits enormously from the current open and liberal international economic order only seeks to upgrade norms and regulations to protect the interest of emerging

markets. Looking ahead, our biggest enemy comes from within. Ultra-nationalism, environmental decline, corruption, equal education opportunity, income disparity, medical care, aging population and rural-urban gap are our real enemy. America is facing a multi-power-center world, and a very loose mandate of a fragile trans-Atlantic relationship. The rise of Japan’s right-wing movement is a double-edged sword that alienates your ally of S Korea and reinforces the PLA strength. I am happy that the US does not take side on the issue of sovereignty. I hope President Obama can successfully re-engage Iran to hopefully disarm the anti-US axis. In fact, China could help. We keep a normal relationship with all players in the M East. This edge is part of the capital we could draw in formulation of our New Silk Road. After all, a stable and prosperous Middle East benefits China’s energy security and a new model of major power relations. China is a plus not a minus. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to brief you about how a Chinese journalist looks at our threat assessment and the mandate of the new Chinese leadership in a new era. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

117

China’s Rise, Not U.S. Decline GLASER, Bonnie S.

China’s Rise, Not U.S. Decline GLASER, Bonnie S. Bonnie S. Glaser is Senior Adviser for Asia, Freeman Chair in China Studies at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

s many of you might know that unlike most of you, I am not an academic or professor. Most of the work that I do is in the policy ground and I do a lot more work on U.S. security policy in East Asia. Thank you to the organizers for including me today. It’s been a very enlightening discussion. The questions that were posted for this panel to address changed from what I was sent by email, and what appear on the program. So I’m little extemporaneous in my remarks, because I think that will hopefully evoke more interesting discussion. The first question, will the United States decline like ancient Rome become less globally dominant than it was in the 20th century? I personally think that the United States is not in decline, I could devote my entire 15 or 13 minutes to that discussion, but I won’t. But I think we are facing a different phenomenon, which others had referred to the rise of the U.S., China certainly rising, narrowing the gap of the power with the United States. I think that the U.S. will actually be, in many ways, a very strong and powerful for many years to come. But these changes, the dynamic that if we were talking about the power, the decline, the rising power, we are talking about the power that I think is going to remain very strong, and many powers, who were rising, not just China. I think Yan Xuetong who is written about the New World has two main powers, and it would be bipolar in the new sense, not in the sense of the U.S., the Soviet Union days. But I think that there will be many powers that I would also agree with the speaker from the last panel, who said that even unipolarity is really sort of over-stated, and the United States is never been

118

completely global dominant that we have had to compromise with other nations along the way. So the second question is, can China rise peacefully? And I think this is a very important question, but we have to understand what the dynamic are played here, and whether China rises peacefully. Some of this is a question of how the rest of the world, and of course the United States responds to China’s rise. And there’s also a question of how China behaves as it rises, so it’s important for Chinese to take some responsibility about the way in which they rise. So I think it was just Yang Rui, who said it, as long as, China towards its core interests are not threatened, you know China could not go to be, in anyway, harm other countries’ interest. But there are ways that China’s core interests are cunning to conflict of the core interest of the other nations, and just the United States. And if China is not rising peacefully in its neighborhood, if it’s intimidating the Philippines and Japan, then those countries are going to react and try to pull in the United States. Now people can push back and say that Japan and the Philippines were provoked China first. Then I will rephrase what I said, to say the way that China reacts to perceive provocations, that’s important too. Is that reaction proportionate or disproportionate? So China has to rise in a way that it can also accommodate other countries’ interest, at least recognize the fact that they have interest that maybe different than China’s interest. The United States has also to accommodate China’s rise as do other countries. I would argue the United States has in fact accommodated China’s rise in many ways. I think this is a process. And

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

China’s Rise, Not U.S. Decline GLASER, Bonnie S.

people who say that the United States is sort to contain China. I would venture to say that if that were our policy goal, the United States has failed. But that was never our policy goal. I think that the United States is always sort to shape China’s rise, not to contain China. And in fact, U.S. policy has helped China emerge as a much stronger power. There’s this concept that Graham Allison is written a great idea about the Thucydides Trap, which he sort of summarizes the rise in the Athens evoked fear and spark. Again, so this goes back to the question of whether China can rise peacefully. China has to rise the way that doesn’t evoke fear in the eyes of other nations. And as Professor Etzioni said that have been four cases, if you go back to 1500, in which there has been a transition of the power and the world that has not ended up in a major power war, so we should study those cases more, see what we can learn to them. But certainly a conflict between the U.S. and China is not inevitable. But we have to be aware of this Thucydides Trap in any case. And we have to have be quite clear about the risks of the potential conflict between our two countries. And that’s the reason why I am actually supportive of this concept of “A New Type of Great Power Relationship” (新兴大国关系), which the Chinese are actually calling a new model of major country relations, not great power relations. But I think it is only correct to say it is really great power relations because otherwise, it sorts of meaningless. But this is really an important concept that Xi Jinping has introduced, and president Obama has not completely dismiss this. I think the Obama administration accepts this option that it is important for our leaders to recognize that we need to try to avoid what happened in the eleven cases that ended up the major power conflict, when the rising power challenge an existing power. Because that’s not in the interest of either one of our countries, so in terms of this negative definition of new type of major country or great power relationship, we agree on what we want to avoid. Now we have to focus more on what is the positive definition?

What can we build in this new type of great power relationship? And some of what Xi Jinping has talked about it is acceptable to the United States. I think we brace the idea of win-win cooperation. When president Obama met with Xi Jinping in the G20, he talked about practical cooperation. I’m great supporter of this idea. I think we should be doing the more on-the-ground, particularly in third country in the Asia Pacific to demonstrate to the rest of the region that we can support the development and prosperity of other countries. Perhaps we can easily, or at least temp down some of the suspicions in both of our countries toward the other. And we can prove to each other at least that we can, in fact, work together for some positive ends. We are doing this in very small ways now. We need to do more of it. I would like to see us work together, for example, a country like Myanmar, I do not think we should have zerosum competition. We are doing something together and understand we have food security project. There’s a lot more that we could do in this regard. The last thing I want to say is that the U.S., really sort of about another concept that I think is relevant to this power transition, and that is the notion of the security dilemma. So those of you who study international relations know that countries would often take steps to defend their own interest and threat that they see to their interest. And then of course that causes other countries to see threats, they then react to defend their interest and threat that they see. And this can become a competitive action, or sort of vicious circle in a way that is very detrimental to the international system. And I think this really correctly describes in my view, what we seeing between the U.S. and China. You could look at the maritime space along the first island chain, and say that China has always seen threat coming from the sea, wants to have the capability to defend particularly its near seas. And the United States of course has seen the ability to navigate freely anywhere in the ocean around the world for centuries. As

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

119

China’s Rise, Not U.S. Decline GLASER, Bonnie S.

critically important to the American interest and the peace and security of the region and the United States would argue that it has in fact been stabilizing factor in the Asia Pacific, so I do not think we necessarily have to deposit that one is being hydromonic , the others having ambitions that can be accepted. I see both powers, in this case, being defensive. But again being aware of this security dilemma, the dynamic that are played, perhaps can help us to avoid the outcome that did result in eleven out of the fifteen cases since 1500. I do not think that there is anything inevitable about a conflict between the United States and China. I think that it was this morning, Xiang Lanxin talked about the strategic assurance that James Steinberg had introduced. I would argue that there should be element of both countries’ policies. We should be reassuring each other, and not just each other, but the rest of the world that China is going to rise peacefully, or if the United States or other countries are going to accommodate China’s rise. But this really isn’t enough. And maybe I have a little bit more time to say just one thing about the world order concept. Just talking with Michael Pillsbury lunch about sort of our concept of world order. Generally world order, I think, rises out of wars, something that we build after there is a war, and so the United Nations, the IMF, other institutions came out of war. And then we created the new world order. So I am not really clear about when people talked about what kind of order China wants to build? What it means? What China wants? Does it want to up-end this world order? Does it want to create something completely new? Or does it want to, in some way, adjust the world order that exists? I think most of you would probably agree that this existing world order has benefited China, perhaps more than any country in the world. China has risen in this world order. It has become a profound success in the prevailing world order. Are there things that are perhaps less than perfect about this world order? Unadjusted? Unfair? I think the United States actually welcomes

120

China into the conversation about how to modify the world order and make it stronger. In fact, we are engaging in this conversation now on cyber security. Well, there really are no rules of the role. And we welcome China this contribution to create them. So, I would say that there is a tremendous potential for China to bring its experiences, its values to the issues of modifying the world order, as long as it is not seeking to up-ended, that will end up with the potential for the United States and China to have a very long transition, I would say, is not inevitable to China would overtake the United States. But if it does, has the potential to be one of the four in history that have not resulted in conflict. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

China’s Third Knock on the Door of the World HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平)

China’s Third Knock on the Door of the World HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平) Deputy Chairman and Secretary General, China Energy Fund Committee; Former Secretary for Home Affairs of the HKSAR Government

am very much impressed by the depth and candor of the discussions exchanged among the participants in the last two days inside this historic landmark of culture.

centers on the “self” and emphasizes individualism, eastern humanism focuses on human relationship which thereby prescribes the essence of a Chinese person.

Differences in political culture between East and West

Ethics of the East and political culture of China

Through our heated discussion, we recognized that China and the United States behold different values, run on different social systems, come from different historical culture, are in different developmental stages, and harbor different strategic consideration. Indeed the divergence between the two countries is so great that it is totally unimaginable that we could ever be friends. The concept of today’s nation state comes from the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 following the Renaissance in Europe. However, China, with 5000 years of history and going through more than 50 different dynasties each with a differing size of governing territory, can best be regarded as a civilization state. “Chinese-ness” of its nationals is defined by the cultural identity. The Chinese view the state as their guardian, manager and the embodiment of their civilization. The role of the state is to preserve the unity of their culture. The legitimacy of China as a state lies in the cultural legacy. This is in contrast to how a state is perceived in the West. The Renaissance has brought Humanism into the European society previously dominated by the Church. But whereas western humanism

Chinese culture is dominated by Confucianism which anchors its principles on an ancient religious foundation of Daoism, while establishing the social values and ideals for the traditional Chinese society. Confucian philosophy presupposes three “Biospheres” of human interactions: Heaven, Earth, and Humans. And Man must find peace in all three. For the Man-Man biosphere, Confucius emphasized proper conduct in one’s social relations, because it is in the company of others that man reaches his ultimate fulfillment. This code of behavior is called “Li” or the social and ethical norms that guide people to do the appropriate things at the right time, manifesting respect and kindness. The most important of all virtues is benevolence (“Ren”), which is love of fellow humans, a sense of compassion based on the dignity of human life, and great self-respect. We cultivate “Ren” by putting ourselves in the position of others and treating them as you wish them to treat you. Confucius said “Do not do to others what you would not like others to do unto you”, and “Do unto others what you want

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

121

China’s Third Knock on the Door of the World HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平)

others to do unto you.” Benevolence means the practice of these two golden principles, which universality permeates all world ethical, cultural, and religious traditions throughout the ages. Regarding Man-Earth interaction, we are all ultimately linked to all life on earth and therefore must treat our environment with respect and care. Furthermore, Man’s obsession with development and growth, and particularly still more things to give us greater convenience, pleasure and comfort, contradicts all teachings against extreme greed, and the principle calling for moderation. Whereas western civilization often regards nature as an object for eventual conquest, the Chinese treats nature with great reverence and respect. Chinese are appreciative of nature as humans and earth, as part of the nature, are deemed to be one entity. Such a world outlook brings up a civilization with a sense of tolerance in pursuit of coexistence and harmony. Concerning Man-Heaven interaction, Confucius honoured Heaven as the supreme

122

source of goodness upon which every human being is personally dependent. The pinnacle achievement in life is to be at one with Heaven. The Confucians’ view of God/Heaven can be summarized as “Great Silence, Infinite Eternal Silence.” It is because in Confucian teaching the primary concern is humanity, and the interrelationship between people, Confucianism has only a very general description and mention of Heaven or God, leaving a large amount of room in the spiritual realm for Chinese people to learn from the other civilizations and religions, such as Buddhism from India, Islam from the Middle East, and Christianity from the West. And perhaps for that reason, Chinese culture is a very tolerant one, being a culture of infinite possibilities and capable of accommodating all and any supreme beings. And perhaps for that same reason, Chinese would seldom engage themselves in arguments about whose is a true God and whose isn’t one, or whose is a better God. And Chinese do not have the burden of

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

China’s Third Knock on the Door of the World HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平)

being self-ordained missionaries defending one religion while attempting to convert everybody else to a particular one. Perhaps, Chinese regards Heaven or God as so supreme and magnificent that it is beyond description, and definition by human. And unlimited possibilities and imaginations exist with this Heavenly state of mind. Instead, Chinese focuses on the interfacing layer between the spiritual sphere and the materialist world, and which can be explained as a network of social and interpersonal relationships: relationship between man and his inner self, man and his surrounding and environment, and man and his fellowmen. Therefore, any type of belief or religion can easily blend into the Chinese spiritual world, but for it to be practiced by the people in the communities, has to be “filtered” through the Confucian network of traditional and social relationship and be “sinicized” or interpreted with Chinese characteristics. A combination of Chinese and Western cultures and Chinese modernization: Second Renaissance Chinese traditional cultural core values are established and time-tested while undergoing twists and turns throughout history. These values are modified and adapted in different timings and contexts, and yet are made applicable to solving the problems of the time. In different eras and locations, the manifestations and the applying methods could vary, but the underlying core values remain steadfast and sustained. According to “Great Learning”, if you can renovate yourself one day, do so from day to day and let there be daily renovation.” This statement signifies the unique innate quality of a life force of perpetual renewing power of the Chinese cultural and gives momentum to selfimprovement as testified in the recent Chinese history. Ever since the mid-19th century, the Chinese people have been looking forward to a

modernized China with a “Renaissance” of the Chinese culture. In face of the challenges posted then by the Western culture of might and technology, the Chinese was awakened in awe and desperation, and the subsequent reactions could be categorized into four groups: (1) distinguish the “Eastern-ness” contending the West; (2) embracing the West in total submission; (3) juxtapositioning the values of the East and the West; (4) populisms, simply driven by whatever the mass desires. None of these are sustainable or responsible. Fei Xiaotong, a renowned sociologist proposed cultural self-consciousness through soul-searching of our cultural legacy and indepth reflection of our cultural identity. On such a basis, a Renaissance of the Chinese culture can be made possible by a modernization of the Chinese core values. To such ends, we have to undertake three tasks. First, we should reconfirm our traditional core values; reinterpret and reapply them to resolve issues of the present day. Second, internalize the Western values and synthesize them with the Chinese. Third, the resultant of this new set of values which is both East and West , and at the same time is neither east nor west, shall serve all human beings around the world. We believe that the values of the East and the West are not incompatible. Instead they constitute a set of values at the two ends of the spectrum, just like the ying and yang of tai chi. The two sets of values operate with one another as two opposing principles in nature complementing and supplementing one another. But one will be incomplete without the other. Therefore, modernization is neither a zerosum game nor a life and death competition. It is a free zone offering unlimited opportunities for diverse development and mutual cooperation while our respective heritage could be preserved. By combining the strength of the East and the West, we can make possible a multi-polar world order for the modern century. Therefore, this Renaissance of the Chinese

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

123

China’s Third Knock on the Door of the World HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平)

culture is not simply a matter for China. New elements will be injected into global civilization, paving the way for a second Renaissance for the entire humanity. During the Renaissance in Europe in the 14th century, individualism brought forth waves of innovations and creativity, resulting in advancement of knowledge, society and all areas of human undertakings. The Renaissance of this time is not only the Renaissance for the Europeans nor the Chinese or Americans, but the Renaissance for the world. It would inspire innovation, promote development, enhance cooperation, advocate respect, fortify friendship, and motivate diversity for the sake of embarking on a long-lasting and peaceful new international order. The Third “Knock” of China Looking back in history, Chinese has knocked on the Western door twice. In the Han Dynasty 2,000 years back, we had the first Silk Road set out by Zhang Qian offering trades and peace; and in the 15th Century, we had the second Silk Road at sea championed by Zheng He bringing trades and peace. The 21st Century will see us embarking on the third Silk Road. This is the third “Knock” on the door of the West, offering dialogue, and friendship. The two previous Silk Roads traded tea, silk, spices, exotic fruits, jewelry and gold. The 21st Century Silk Road trades for, apart from creative ideas, innovations, and creative talents, it trades values. It offers peace. This modern Silk Road travels neither by sea nor on land, nor go from one place to another, but travels through the inner workings of the human minds driven by a desire to captivate the advantages of peaceful competition in this globalized world. This modern Silk Road merges creative markets and aligns policies to form alliances in exploring the commonality among cultures and community values. This Silk Road sees citizens of different cities

124

and countries sharing common aspirations and inviting one another into their dreams that life is celebrated through cultural pursuits, and our people are enchanted by the arts, enlightened by cultural differences and enriched by social diversity. This Silk Road teaches people to learn with mutual respect that despite our different backgrounds and upbringings, there are some fundamental values we all hold dear, some basic principles we all respect and certain core understanding we all embrace. The purpose of this Silk Road is not to establish an empire of might but to extend our empire of minds. A very famous Chinese, Sun Yat-sen, once had this dream: “Once our goal of modernizing China is accomplished, the dawn of a new century will shine upon our beautiful country, and the whole of humanity will enjoy a more brilliant future.” A not-so-famous Chinese, Patrick HO, also had a dream: “ I have a dream. I dream of a cultural China, with ideas and values to inspire humanity. The redefinition of Chinese core values signifies the awakening of a modern humanity, and would eventually lead to another human Renaissance of the modern time.” As what President Xi Jinping told President Obama at the Annenberg Retreat, the Chinese dream is interlinked with the American dream which is inclusive of the beautiful dream of the people from countries around the world. This Chinese dream, is not only the Dream of 1.3 billion Chinese over 5,000 years, it is also a World Dream. It is a Dream of Peace under Heaven, and the World as One. This dream belongs to all of us. It belongs to you, and me. * This article is an extract from the author’s speech on “Sino-US Colloquium (IV): Core Values and World Order” organized by the China Energy Fund Committee on October 4-5, 2013 at the Carnegie Library.

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

China’s Third Knock on the Door of the World HO Chi Ping, Patrick (何志平)

Call for Papers China Eye is an international academic journal on geopolitics, energy security, economy and culture. It is published by China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC) - a non-governmental nonpartisan Chinese think-tank registered in Hong Kong. This English publication aims to facilitate a better understanding of China by providing a forum for diverse views, carrying Chinese as well as non-Chinese perspectives. Would-be contributors should forward their proposed original contributions with a synopsis, to include:

(1) title; (2) author’s affiliation, and (3) e-mail address, phone and fax numbers.

Our contact details are: E-mail: chinaeye@chinaenergyfund.org Phone number: (852)-2655 1666 Fax number: (852)-2655 1616 Address: Room 3401-08, 34/F, Convention Plaza Office Tower, 1 Harbour Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong

CHINA EYE‧Issue5 January 2014

125