Mao Yushi (茅于轼) is an esteemed octogenarian economist and head of the Unirule Institute of Economics (天则经济研究所), a think tank in Beijing.  He is an outspoken and prominent member of China’s liberal right, and unabashedly advocates free market principles and human rights while speaking out on improving the lives of China’s poor.  He himself suffered greatly for his beliefs both during the 1957 Anti-Rightist Campaign as well as during the Cultural Revolution.  Since being rehabilitated along with thousands of others by Hu Yaobang in 1978, he has written several important books on economics, been a visiting scholar at Harvard, and established himself as a prominent voice for justice.  More recently, he worked on some initial drafts of Charter 08 and appears as a signatory to the document although it was later reported that he did not actually sign it.  In addition, Mao has written on the reforms of the last 30 years and where liberalism fits in those reforms.  The following excerpt was translated from his blog:

It’s true, I’m a liberal.  However, the success of China’s reforms has been totally reliant on liberals.  Of course they have failed at times, but the most important factor in the successful endeavors has been the leadership of liberals. Today, people have the liberty to move around the country, the liberty to start a business, and the liberty to travel anywhere in the world.  All of this is liberty.

Mao’s thinking can be quite unconventional, as when he called for the elimination of private bathrooms (in exchange for communal ones) in government sponsored low-priced housing in order to discourage wealthy speculators from buying up all the units.  He has also argued that lost revenue due to corruption in China only accounts for 2-3% of total production, and thus does not seriously impede the creation of wealth.

His ideas have also been controversial, including his call to eliminate the policy of setting an impenetrable ‘red line’ representing the minimum acreage of cultivated land necessary to maintain China’s near self-sufficiency in producing food. Mao calls for China to rely more on food imports in accordance with free market principles in order to protect rural land rights, reduce housing prices, speed up urbanization and reduce corruption.  The following excerpt was translated from his blog:

First, on the whole, no food security problems could come about in modern China.  Second, there is not a certain relationship between food security and the protection of cultivated land.  Third, the 300 million acre ‘red line’ is not needed…We must believe in the market’s ability to adjust…If we can calculate 300 million acres of cultivated land for food, then shouldn’t we calculate how much toothpaste and how many shoes the nation should produce? That’s planned economics.

And in translation from another post:

Whether a piece of land is used to grow food, build a factory, construct an airport, or make a parking lot should be decided according to the specific circumstances.  It’s completely unreasonable to always place a priority on growing food.  However, the policy of protecting farmland does just that.  This creates a great hindrance to the construction of cities.  Every time farmland is to be used, one must go through the complicated approval process…What is especially worthy of attention is the opportunity for corruption created by this process.  Nowadays, most cases of corruption are related to land-use…A good system can prevent corruption, a bad system brings on corruption. The current system for protecting farmland does more harm than good and should be changed as soon as possible.

This proposal, along with many of his other ideas, has led to vehement reprisals from China’s left, claiming his ideas violate national security principles and pander to the West. A review of some of the articles directed at him at the prominent leftist site Utopia (乌有之乡) reveals such titles as ‘A Report to Determine Whether Mao Yushi Is a Traitor’ and ‘America’s Ford Foundation Subsidized Mao Yushi’s Bombardment of the 300 Million Acre Red Line’.

More recently, Mao was back in the news due to comments he made at an economic conference on China’s inability to maintain 8% growth in 2009, and more sensationally for the following comment (in translation) on Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao:

The international price of food increased (referring to 2008), and under free trade there would definitely have been exports (from China), and these exports would have earned money.  However, China declared that it would not permit the export of food, and Wen Jiabao said that not one granule of food would be allowed to be exported.  I often speak about what Wen Jiabao is not, but in fact I really like him and he really is a good premier.  However, he is often deceived.

Finally, below are translations of an article Mao wrote for the Financial Times Chinese website, and a response to Mao’s article written by a leftist for Utopia.

1978: The Year of Rehabilitation (1978: 平反之年）

By Mao Yushi （茅于轼）

Link to Original Publication at FTChinese.com

Translated for Mei-Zhong Guanxi

Mao Zedong engaged in 30 years of class struggle and countless people were harmed.  This makes people think of the cruel rule of Qin Shihuang (秦始皇; first emperor of Qin) involving heavy taxes and slave labor, harsh criminal laws, countless sinners everywhere you looked, and the busy ways of those punished with tattooed faces and severed limbs.  In our 30 years of human struggle, it is estimated that tens of millions were directly persecuted to death, and perhaps more than 100 million family members and friends were indirectly affected.  This represents approximately 10% of the entire population of 900 million at the time.  Even more, because many of those who suffered were social elites, the social structure suffered great destruction.  This was an unprecedented disaster for the Chinese people.  After the fall of the Gang of Four, the most pressing matter was redressing unjust cases.  I was one of the objects of these rehabilitations.  In 1957, I was labeled a rightist, and then during the Cultural Revolution, again my house was searched and my property confiscated, and I was forced from my home.  I was judged to be one of the capital’s dangerous elements and was driven away to the Datong engine factory to labor.

It is very difficult for young people today to understand the meaning of rehabilitation or what a lack of redress would mean.  It is important to realize that 30 years ago, everything in China was controlled by the government, a.k.a. the Communist party.  Every person’s rice bowl was in the hands of the Communist party.  If they let you have food, you had food to eat, and if they didn’t let you eat, you could only starve to death.  It’s not like today where if the government doesn’t employ you, you can go to a private enterprise or a foreign firm or even set up a stall on the street; it’s not at all hard to find food to eat.  At that time, it was very difficult for a ‘guilty’ person to find food, and even if they did, they would be discriminated against in all respects.  In their lifetime, they could not enter the party nor join the army, would not be allowed to attend university, and would be completely without prospects.  Only rehabilitation could remove these problems, allow society to recover its vitality, avoid the losses suffered from people struggling against one another, and put the country on the road to development, strength, and prosperity.

Rehabilitation was not at all without hindrances.  Many people felt that if everyone were rehabilitated, what would be used to control the masses?  It is impossible for a dictatorship to abandon its methods.  Even today, there is still a market for this kind of thinking.  Thus, the wording ‘a dictatorship of the proletariat’ still remains in the constitution.  If it wasn’t for Hu Yaobang leading the rehabilitations, it’s still unknown how long this matter would have been delayed.  The rehabilitations that Hu called for involved canceling everything completely, or in other words, a complete liberation with nothing left behind.  From the start, the country had laws, and engaging in political persecutions outside the law is fundamentally illegal.  Later, when the criminal laws were altered, ‘counter revolutionary’ was deleted.  However, people’s minds always lag behind reality.  All the way up until recently, there are still things like what happened at Huadong Normal University where students snitched on a teacher for expressing anti-revolutionary viewpoints in the classroom.  The reason why Mao Zedong was able to launch the Cultural Revolution in China, and may not have been able to in America, is because in China there are many people like the students at Huadong Normal University.  Up to now, we are still not able to say with certainty that something like the Cultural Revolution will not happen again in China.

For me, at that time, other than still being owed a second level salary, there were no remaining problems.  In my work unit (railroad research institute), I already had an academic position on which I could stand, and I didn’t need to beg for anything from anybody.  So, I didn’t really care whether I was rehabilitated or not.  This was due even more to the fact that I had a fundamentally different take on the wording ‘rehabilitation.’  Today the Communist party rehabilitates people, and tomorrow they could label you an anti-revolutionary.  With the power in these people’s hands, what’s the use of rehabilitation?  Thus, I believe a more thorough method would be to fundamentally remove the rulers’ ability to appropriate the power of the masses, and restore the constitutional rights of common people.  Thus, I care more about the rights of the masses and not individual rehabilitation issues.  Only when rehabilitation and the basic rights of commoners are integrated is it something that I really care about.

As for considering something as it stands, I didn’t feel that I needed to be rehabilitated.  Everybody said, ‘so-and-so was falsely labeled a rightist.’   But I felt that I was correctly labeled a rightist, and it was not at all an injustice.  This is because at that time I really did want to take the capitalist road, which could also be called the ‘primary stage of socialism’ road.  Even if I didn’t really understand what capitalism or primary stages were at that time, my rightist expressions really did include calling for an increase in prices in response to not being able to buy pork, and other examples.  If you say that I wasn’t wrong at the time, and there is to be some redress, then it was the Communist party who was wrong.  However, up to now, no one has said that the Communist party was wrong at that time.  Thus, to say you will rehabilitate me, there is a problem with this logic that has still not been clearly resolved.

30 years have already passed since 1978.  In my view, the most important event of that year was the redress of unjust cases.  However, the tail of this problem remains to this day and has not been resolved at all.

The Testimony of Mao Yushi (茅于轼的证明)

By Da Yu （大于）

Link to Original Publication at Utopia

Translated for Mei-Zhong Guanxi

After reading Mao Yushi’s ‘1978: The Year of Rehabilitations – I was correctly labeled a rightist’, which was written in response to the ‘My 1978’ call for essays by the British newspaper the Financial Times, I can’t help but applaud him.

The value of this essay by Mao Yushi lies in the fact that it proves many things that have been difficult for us to prove.  Its most outstanding passage is:

As for considering something as it stands, I didn’t feel that I needed to be rehabilitated.  Everybody said, ‘so-and-so was falsely labeled a rightist.’   But I felt that I was correctly labeled a rightist, and it was not at all an injustice.  This is because at that time I really did want to take the capitalist road, which could also be called the ‘primary stage of socialism’ road.  Even if I didn’t really understand what capitalism or primary stages were at that time, my rightist expressions really did include calling for an increase in prices in response to not being able to buy pork, and other examples.  If you say that I wasn’t wrong at the time, and there is to be some redress, then it was the Communist party who was wrong.  However, up to now, no one has said that the Communist party was wrong at that time.  Thus, to say you will rehabilitate me, there is a problem with this logic that has still not been clearly resolved.

Of this, the most remarkable sentence is of course: ‘I was correctly labeled a rightist, and it was not at all an injustice.’

As for the ‘anti-rightist struggle’, the views of those inside and outside the party have been different all along.  A rough background of the ‘anti-rightist struggle’ follows:

Imperialist reactionaries took advantage of the 1956 Hungary Incident to begin a worldwide anti-Soviet, anti-Communist counter-current.  Mao Zedong saw that after communist parties took control in socialist countries, if they broke away from the masses it would be possible for the country to go down the opposite path.  In reaction to the basely cruel manner of some cadres, the relationship between cadres and the masses was worsening and had even led to incidents of mass protest.  Therefore, it was decided to undertake a party rectification (整党整风).  Although this party rectification suffered from resistance by the bureaucracy, what was unexpected was the active participation from outside the party of the ‘capitalist, rightist intellectuals’ (资产阶级右派知识分子).  They wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to help the Communist party rectify itself to call on the party to give up its power and put China on the road to capitalism.

At first, Mao did not at all endorse the development of an anti-rightist struggle.  However, due to disagreement with the party’s bureaucrats, in an intricate and complex situation, the principle of the minority obeying the majority was followed and the results of the party rectification developed into the anti-rightist struggle.  During this struggle, the party’s bureaucracy took advantage of the situation to take revenge on those who had sincerely wanted to help the party rectify itself.  Due to this, the struggle was expanded to varying degrees, and in the end, 450,000 rightists were seized across the country.  From 1959 to 1964, according to Mao’s directive to ‘phase in the rehabilitation of rightists’, most rightists were rehabilitated across the country in five successive groups.  In 1978, central authorities decided to rehabilitate all of the rightists.

After all the rightists were rehabilitated, even though the central authorities repeatedly made it clear that rehabilitation was not the same as correcting a mistake, some people continued to insist that the Communist party admit that the anti-rightist struggle was completely wrong.  This is just like the testimony of Mao Yushi: ‘If you say that I wasn’t wrong at the time, and there is to be some redress, then it was the Communist party who was wrong.’  Mao Yushi feels that, ‘However, the tail of this problem remains to this day and has not been resolved at all.’  Da Yu (the author) also feels that the tail of this matter really does remain and should be thoroughly resolved.  Otherwise, this tail will swell up more and more until it’s too large to be dealt with easily, and it will be difficult for the Communist party to do anything about it.

Mao Yushi also wrote ‘Up to now, no one has said that the Communist party was wrong at that time.  Thus, to say you will rehabilitate me, there is a problem with this logic that has still not been clearly resolved.’  Here I would like to point out a problem with Mao Yushi’s logic that he has still not clearly resolved.  ‘Labeled a rightist’ is meant to refer to someone that is actually not a rightist, someone who has been falsely attacked as having become a rightist.  This is just like if you have a cat and it is ‘labeled’ as having become a dog.  In this case, ‘labeled a dog’ agrees with logic.  If you have a dog and you ‘label’ it a dog, you would say ‘labeled a dog’, and this would be unclear logically.  You, Mao Yushi, were an actual rightist, and at the time really did want to take the capitalist road.  This proves that you were not mishandled at the time.  Thus, the sentence ‘I was correctly labeled a rightist’ is unclear logically.

Mao Yushi should also know that opposing the party and opposing socialism violated the constitution at that time.  Since you really were a rightist, it proves that your matter was handled according to the law, and at the very least affirms that you were not mishandled.

Note: This site has no relation to the authors or original publications. These translations were done for informational purposes only and not for commercial gain or to express any personal views. To contact the author or original publication, please check the details listed above.

In one of prominent biographer Xin Ziling’s (辛子陵) works, he references Ma Bin’s (马宾 ) essay ‘Only Mao Zedong Thought Can Save China’ (只有毛泽东思想才能救中国) in order to represent a leftist view on the Cultural Revolution. The following quote from Ma’s article was included: “It’s not that the Cultural Revolution was wrong, it’s that Deng Xiaoping completely negated it…His successors engaged in revisionism, and what is really needed is to re-launch the Cultural Revolution to dispel this.” Immediately following this reference, Xin continues with the following very significant quote from Deng Xiaoping: “Watch out for the right, but the most important thing is opposing the left.” (要警惕右，主要是反对左；note: Xin quotes Deng as having used the word ‘oppose’ while it appears that most others quote him as having used ‘guard against’ (防止)).

The following is the first part of Ma’s essay translated from the version which was published in 2004 at the prominent leftist site Utopia (乌有之乡; www.wyzxsx.com).

Only Mao Zedong Thought Can Save China (只有毛泽东思想才能救中国)

By Ma Bin (马宾 )

Link to Utopia (乌有之乡) Version

Translated for Mei-Zhong Guanxi

Random Notes (1)

As for labor remuneration, the principle of ‘get paid according to work done’ (按劳取酬) should be followed; egalitarianism and specialization should not be instituted. All citizens with the ability to work must join in and labor (which includes studying). Laborers should not be differentiated as ‘retired’ or ‘retired with special honors’ (note: the latter term often refers specifically to party cadres); the system should be unified with everyone just ‘retired.’

Following the spirit of the Paris Commune, public servants’ salary level should not be higher than then the highest salaried workers.

As for a specific suggestion, retired politburo members should not keep the benefits that were necessary for their work, specifically their old staff and finances, and should not become a new ‘noble class.’

At Beidaihe (北戴; note: a summer resort area used by the party), everyone knows that Secretary Hu Jintao decided that this summer he would not go there to rest, and there would be no meetings there either. This decision was praised by the entire country. However, the Xishan coastal area of Beidaihe, with its seven bathing spots, was not opened to the public, and the only coastal thoroughfare connecting Beidaihe with Nandaihe was restricted. Thus, the local residents and tourists were greatly inconvenienced and very angry.

Those close to the bathing spots debated why the security was still so tight if the party secretary had already decided not to hold meetings there. Some said that although no current officials of great importance would be coming, some retired central officials would be coming to recuperate and that this was fair and reasonable. The problem is that after these people retired and are not responsible for important national affairs, they shouldn’t continue to enjoy benefits as if they were still in office.

There were also some who said that this was the mark of Deng Xiaoping and Zeng Qinghong (曾庆红) as they had used all possible means to pleasure old cadres.

For retired cadres of all levels, as soon as they are no longer cadres, they should be demobilized and become commoners (it should be like this, but if there are some who can still cast some light and serve the people, of course that is a good thing).

[Following an excerpt from a news bulletin on the Beidaihe situation, the author continues…]

One disappointed Beijing tourist didn’t understand and wondered on what legal basis some work units had seized the Beidaihe beaches for their own special use. In the eyes of the leaders of these work units, do they still see the masses?

In the analysis of some Beijing scholars, the strange phenomenon involving the seizure of Beidaihe’s beaches, in the end, can be blamed on a special rights mentality. This is because today some cadres, even some that have already retired, still maintain a mentality that leads them to believe that in every situation they are different from the masses. Thus, their houses should be spacious, their cars should be high grade, their clothes should be famous brands, and their meals should be rich. Even when they are resting on vacation, they don’t want to mix with the masses as that would not only be lacking in face, it would also be unsafe.

Note: This site has no relation to the author or original publication. This translation was done for informational purposes only and not for commercial gain or to express any personal views. To contact the author or original publication, please check the details listed above.

By Jing Kaixuan (景凯旋)

Original Publication:

南方都市报 (The Southern Metropolis Daily)

Link to Original Article

Translated by Anton Lee Wishik II for Mei-Zhong Guanxi

The Chinese Academy of Sciences recently released the world’s first ‘National Health Report’ (国家健康报告). In its ‘National Responsibility Index’ (国家责任指数) ranking, China was ranked first out of the 45 countries from around the world which were sampled.  The US was ranked last, and other developed nations were also generally ranked near the bottom.  This so-called ‘national responsibility’ is, of course, referring to internal and external issues.  Apparently, all along we have been living in a paradise on earth, while two-thirds of the world’s population is still living in an abyss of suffering.  If the results of this research hadn’t been published after the melamine scandal, they would have caused pleasant dreams which brought smiles and speechless admiration.

Forgive me for being asinine, but as for this great news, I’m going to go so far as to say that it’s unavoidable to remain somewhat unconvinced because the results are so inconsistent with common sense.  Take the US for example; perhaps its government is irresponsible to the world, but it takes responsibility for its own citizens.  In addition, for determining whether a country’s government is responsible, one should look at the corresponding situation concerning its rights and duties.  Different countries have different systems, and the governments’ responsibilities are also different.  China has big government and small society.  It has implemented a concentration of power.  Naturally the government manages more, and its responsibilities are also greater.  The US has small government and big society.  It has implemented a dispersion of power.  Naturally, the government manages less, and also has less responsibility.  Even if it wanted to undertake more responsibility, its citizens would not agree.  By using how much a government manages to decide whether it acts responsibly, of course developing countries will be ranked near the top.  But again, what does this show?

Logically, the planned economy of the past would actually count as the greatest undertaking of responsibility.  As soon as a person was born, the state would take charge of their whole life including free education, public health care, cheap housing, retirement pensions, equal compensation, the iron rice bowl, the centralized issuance of meal and clothing coupons, and even marriages approved by work units, guarding against encountering any inhumanity.  Yet the opening and reform which came later was done precisely for discarding all of this.  Which is also to say that the substance of reform was for the state to gradually give up these parts of its responsibility and for society to assume them.  For example, both the former contract system of Xiaogang Village (小岗村的承包制) as well as the hope today that a policy decision could come out regarding land being able to be freely exchanged are part of this process.  To use the terms of the task force report, only this is the approach for a country to take regarding the ‘responsibility that should be undertaken and fulfilled for citizen’s existence, development, safety, health, happiness, and sustainable development.’

Competition among countries is not like sports competition for a gold medal for which a satisfactory result requires there to be one side declared number one.  Even if they are to be compared, it should be done with scientific and technical contents.  Exactly what kind of concept is ‘national health’?  I’m afraid that other than health task forces, no one is clear on this.  If this kind of research is done where the country is shown to be rich and prosperous and opponents surrender, then social development is extremely easy.  All that is needed is to mobilize the imaginative power of scholars and experts, and that is enough.  It’s not necessary to do a research project under a scientific pretense while spending taxpayers’ money because the results of this kind of research are obvious before they come out.  We will definitely be positioned first, and the US will definitely be positioned last.  Proof is not at all necessary.

This is not to say that one shouldn’t praise.  The results of reform and opening are obvious to all, but this is not nearly enough to make us euphoric.  There was a consensus in the 80’s called ‘consciousness of hardship’ (忧患意识) which said that a nation should often reflect on its own inadequacies, and only upon seeing others’ positive aspects can society progress.  In today’s world, perhaps China is the country most willing to take responsibility, and this is great progress.  However, it still can’t be said that it is the most responsible country.  Moreover, following the intensification of reform, numerous social abuses have continuously occurred.  Instances of corruption in education, medical treatment, and the judiciary can often be seen in the newspaper.  Some officials abuse power, take bribes and pervert justice, treat human life as if it is not worth a straw, give false reports on accidents, and things are more and more just hanging by a thread.  Also, government officials’ accountability often comes about after accidents happen, compelled by media exposure.  A long-term mechanism for automatic accountability has not yet been established.  If it is still considered normal for a person to always see their own strong points and other people’s deficiencies, then taking one’s own deficiencies and seeing them as strong points cannot be considered normal.

China is prosperous, but it is not prosperous to the point where it could never run out of money.  If there is that much effort and the expenditure of that many taxpayers’ dollars, it still would be better to spend them on research on the three rural issues, social injustice, corruption, medical treatment and education reform rather than spending it on this kind of meaningless research project.  Today, as citizens’ consciousness is strengthened more and more, other than making the public think it’s a big joke and making them feel sorry for the reckless use of tax money, this research is useless.  It’s just like the stones for the monument on Yang Mountain in the suburbs of Nanjing.  This monument was erected by the son of Zhu Yuanzhang (朱元璋) for his father during the Ming dynasty.  Because it was too tall and too big, it was eventually discarded on the mountain and became a historic symbol of all the great undertakings in China which had nothing to do with the people’s welfare: great meaninglessness.

(The author is a professor at Nanjing University)

For another translated editorial on the report by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, please see this excellent post by the China Media Project.

Note: This site has no relation to the author or original publication. This translation was done for informational purposes only and not for commercial gain or to express any personal views. To contact the author or original publication, please check the details listed above.

By Zhao Duan (赵端)

Original Publication:

Study Times (学习时报)

Link to Original Article

Translated by Anton Lee Wishik II for Mei-Zhong Guanxi

The Internet is China’s most democratic area in which anyone can express their own viewpoint with a great deal of freedom. In fact, the Internet has become the testing ground for Chinese democracy. Unfortunately, the conclusions we have arrived at from this experimental forum are not all that optimistic.

Although the Internet has played a very positive role in a series of events and its positive influence has received more and more attention, China’s internet culture is still not healthy. The most prominent manifestation of this unhealthiness has been the saturation of violent language online. When online, a person who is normally gentle and refined may treat others unscrupulously, partake in baseless verbal attacks, and fearlessly employ poisonous, barbaric language. The deep digging of the ‘human flesh search engines’ and the ubiquity of false accusations against supposed Chinese traitors causes great harm to those involved. Furthermore, the degree of this kind of injury has already greatly exceeded what these people should have to bear. This kind of destruction of human rights, which is in complete opposition to democracy, is a classic example of the despotic rule of the majority, and this is exactly what countless democratic theory experts fear the most.

Democracy requires a culture imbued with a spirit of compromise and can only operate upon a foundation of mutual compromise. The minority must obey the majority, and the majority must respect the minority. Without the magnanimity to tolerate dissent, democracy will inevitably evolve into unending internal strife. Moreover, online debate often involves slander and disdain for even considering the opposing viewpoint with ignoramuses, minds handicapped by ridicule, and angry youth at every turn in a special insult network. This falls far short of the necessities of democratic politics.

The Internet confers the maximum freedom of speech to citizens, but many people still cannot exercise this freedom. In addition to irrational slander and intolerance of dissent, groundless accusations regardless of the facts and fits of irresponsible speech are also normal in internet culture, even to the extent that the Internet has already become the primary channel for spreading rumors. Many people have not realized that they should be responsible for every single thing they say and don’t understand that they ought to respect facts and must have proof for what they say. Furthermore, they believe rumors, repeat half-baked ideas as if they were based on good grounds, and flaunt their goal of moving their tongues quickly. As for the effects of what they say, they are nonchalant. If they facts prove them wrong, they still won’t engage in any introspection or confession. There are hardly any examples of people sincerely apologizing for harm caused by what they said online. The situation we have seen is that the Internet gives people freedom of speech, but this kind of freedom has not made people become more tolerant or more open-minded. On the contrary, it has led to the rapid spread of narrow-mindedness and ruthless tyranny. The result it that some people are free to insult and threaten online, but some people don’t dare to speak out because it’s equivalent to giving others a target. Freedom of speech can create this kind of result, and this is something that many people have probably never thought of. Freedom does not only imply a right, but also implies responsibility, namely the responsibility to use the right prudently and take responsibility for what you say. The reality that we should recognize is that our countrymen are not prepared enough in this area.

If actual society was like the Internet with its lack of restrictive mechanisms, the disorder of online democracy would surely appear in real democracy as well. With this in mind, we should be more pragmatic and cautious when pushing forward with democracy. The construction of democratic systems should be gradually carried out in the wake of economic development and the improvement of the masses’ standard of living. Currently, when people discuss democracy, they pay more attention to building institutions. They feel that once the institutions are in place, people will definitely mature as they are trained in implementing democracy. Reality has shown that this is just a pleasant dream and nothing more. If there are not abundant preparations made in improving mass democratic qualities, the construction of institutions very well may fail. After the Xinhai Revolution (辛亥革命), very democratic systems were set up, but due to a lack of preparation in fostering democratic qualities (namely building up civic culture), it was unable to succeed. Afterwards, the course of Chinese democracy rose and fell and continuously twisted and turned. Many areas were returned to their original status and progress was limited. Looking around at all the world’s nations, it cannot be said that there are just a few cases of nations whose systems seem democratic on the exterior, but due to shortcomings in the people’s cultural level, in reality, they are governed undemocratically. There is also more than one case of countries which have paid a disastrous price for this. Just because you want to learn how to swim, you shouldn’t believe that just by jumping into the water you’ll definitely be able to make it.

Achieving democracy is the result of all the aspects and conditions flowing together into one channel, and it’s certainly very difficult to succeed on the first try. China’s democratization is a completely novel experiment in human history and is an experiment which cannot be allowed to fail. Abundant preparations must be made with planning first and action second. When the conditions are ripe, things should be pushed forward step by step. The building up of civic culture must fit together with the building up of systems. Only in this manner can twists and turns be lessened as much as possible. In the past, we have discussed civic culture, enlightened democracy, and have often been limited to publicizing democracy’s positives and how we should develop democracy. Admittedly, this is surely meaningful, but by itself is far from enough. Speaking of developing democracy, consciousness of the rules and regulations is even more important. This requirement begins with each of us by positively promoting the improvement of ordinary people’s democratic qualities, respect for others’ rights, a tolerant atmosphere including respect for dissenting views, the fostering of prudence in language and action, and the brave introspection associated with consciousness regarding responsibility. So long as we prepare abundantly in these areas, the implementation of democracy at all levels will follow as a matter of course.

Note: This site has no relation to the author or original publication. This translation was done for informational purposes only and not for commercial gain or to express any personal views. To contact the author or original publication, please check the details listed above.

By Wu Hongsen (吴洪森)

Original Publication:

Window of the South (南风窗)

Link to Original Article

Translated by Anton Lee Wishik II for Mei-Zhong Guanxi

Upon seeing this kind of headline, readers will certainly ask, isn’t China’s population 1.3 billion?  Where did the other 1.2 billion-plus go?

When I say that China’s population is only 43 million, it’s based on converting over to the per capita US consumption in 2006.

In 2006, US per capita income was $36,000 and total consumption was nine trillion dollars.  The US has a population of 300 million so per capita consumption was $30,000.  In 2006, China’s per capita income was $2,000 and its consumption rate was 51%.  Thus, per capita consumption was $1,000 or 1/30th of the US per capita consumption.  If you divide 1.3 billion by 30, the consumption of China’s 1.3 billion people is only equivalent to a population of 43 million Americans.

China’s total consumption is only 1/7th of the US’s, which is to say that the consumption of seven China’s is equal to one America.  Even if China’s total consumption was on par with the US, it would still be the case that seven Chinese people would equal one American.

America’s consumption is equal to that of Europe and Japan combined.  Thus, it’s not hard to understand why it is that as soon as the US economy catches a cold, the global economy catches a cold.  In an age when consumption is king, only a country’s consumption truly represents her economic strength.

We often like to use the economy’s overall GDP figure, become intoxicated with our success, and make China out as already being an extraordinary great power.  However, if one uses per capita consumption as a measure, one immediately realizes that China is a poor country, and moreover, is a very poor country.  China’s per capita income ranks 129th out of the world’s 193 countries.  If you add on the fact that consumption is only 51%, its ranking is not within the top 150.

For countries whose citizens have an average annual income surpassing $1,000, a trend appears in which their consumption rate increases in step with GDP, and even exceeds GDP growth by 1%.  Only China is the exception.  After the Chinese per capita income reached $1,000 for the first time in 2002, not only did the consumption rate not follow the increase in GDP, on the contrary, it fell compared to the previous year  In 2006, it fell to 51%.  The average consumption rate globally is 76%.  Thus, China won the number one ranking globally for its savings rate.

What is the significance of a low consumption rate?

At the very least, it denotes two large issues:  First, after many products are produced they are just placed in a warehouse and are not consumed (for storing things in a warehouse, a storage fee is paid which increases GDP; thus, GDP is easily flooded and merely measuring the economy by increases in GDP is unreliable).  What does it mean that production capacity has not been fully consumed?  The possibility of an economic crisis!

Second, an increase in income accompanied by a decrease in consumption signifies that the methods of economic increase and distribution have not only not increased people’s feeling of security, on the contrary, they have increased feelings of uncertainty regarding the future.  This is clearly due to a severe asymmetry that has been created between increases in income and expected increases in expenses.

To dodge an economic crisis, only a substantial increase in the consumption rate will do. To increase the consumption rate, only strengthening the citizens’ feeling of security will do.  To strengthen the citizens’ feeling of security, only eliminating those factors which cause them panic will do.  Everyone is clear on which factors cause Chinese citizens to panic:  inability to see a doctor, inability to pay tuition, inability to buy a house, and unemployment without safeguards.

The prevalent viewpoint sees solving the masses’ four large difficulties as a material welfare issue.  However, by viewing this in the context of the relationship between GDP and the consumption rate, we should be able to see that this is not a material welfare issue, but is the great issue of whether the entire economy can continue to operate and its relationship to each person’s interests.  If consumption can’t follow in step with increases in production capacity, more and more products will be overstocked, and as soon as an economic crisis breaks out, every person is a victim!

Since per capita consumption is a far more accurate reflection than GDP of the situation concerning our economic growth and the masses’ income, why don’t we use per capita consumption as a standard for measuring our official achievements?

Using per capita consumption as a standard to measure an area’s economic development, at the very least, would bring several clear benefits:  one would be to force officials to be concerned with the masses’ income and think of ways to make it so they would dare to spend money.  The second would be to stimulate all areas into happily admitting a higher population.  Because a large population leads to a large amount of consumption, officials’ achievements would be obvious.  In this manner, the residence permit (hukou,户口) issue would naturally resolve itself.  Within the next 30 years, China’s trend towards urbanization will not change, so there must be a rational policy to sweep away hindrances to urbanization and increase its pace.  By using per capita consumption to examine official achievements, this goal could be attained.

It is estimated that in ten years, China’s population will reach 1.5 billion.  At that time, if China’s per capita consumption reaches $6,000, total domestic consumption would be equal to America’s current consumption.  In another ten years after that, when per capita consumption reaches $12,000, China’s consumption would be equal to two America’s.  Although according to per capita consumption China’s figure would still be only 1/3rd of America’s, at that time, if the Chinese economy coughed, the entire world would shake.  At that time, the disadvantage of having a large population would become an advantage.  Only national strength brought about by the prosperity of the people is true national strength.

Some people will definitely ask, if China becomes a large nation of consumers, how will the earth provide so many natural resources?  One America has already made the earth say enough, if two more America’s appear, how could the earth bear them?

Increases in consumption and what to consume are of course two ideas, and this is a topic for another article.  However, this kind of concern also makes it clear that the path for China’s economic development not only must take the path of people’s prosperity, but also must differ from America in modes of economic increase and consumption, and must go its own way.

Note: This site has no relation to the author or original publication. This translation was done for informational purposes only and not for commercial gain or to express any personal views. To contact the author or original publication, please check the details listed above.

By Ou wen (欧文)

Original Publication:

New Bulletin (新快报)

Link to Original Article

Translated by Anton Lee Wishik II for Mei-Zhong Guanxi

Mei-Zhong Note: For background on this article, please see this post and this post.

Note: This site has no relation to the author or original publication. This translation was done for informational purposes only and not for commercial gain or to express any personal views. To contact the author or original publication, please check the details listed above.

On August 26th, Chinese Politburo member and Guangdong Party Secretary Wang Yang (汪洋) met with New York Times special columnist Thomas Friedman in Guangzhou.  As the crystallization of this trip to Guangdong, Mr. Friedman’s editorial, ‘Postcard from South China’, was published in the August 31st edition of the New York Times.

Friedman is a senior reporter and famous author in the US and has won the Pulitzer Prize three times.  His book ‘The World Is Flat’, which explained the profound in simple language, showed that economic globalization has already become an irreversible and inevitable rule.  This book was widely influential and has already been translated into 32 languages.  Wang Yang repeatedly recommended this book to cadres both during his time working in Chongqing and since his arrival in Guangdong.

On the afternoon of September 2nd, a commentary by netizen ‘Wang You Cao’ (汪忧草) titled ‘How did Secretary Wang Yang get an advertisement in the New York Times?’ (汪洋书记咋把广告打到《纽约时报》了？) was posted on the People’s Net Great Powers Forum (人民网强国论坛).  It quickly received the attention of tens of thousands of netizens.

A Netizen Salutes Secretary Wang

Our Guangdong Party Secretary Wang Yang produced an ‘ad’ in the New York Times.

I feel that Wang Yang’s brilliance on this issue lies in the following: His extreme ingenuity in ‘marketing’ Cantonese people’s leading mentality, pursuit of changing ways of thinking, and ‘dare to put the material world first’ spirit to the special columnist from the New York Times.  At the same time, Secretary Wang also communicated the Chinese Communist Party members’ image as pragmatic, modest, and studious to the Western media in just the right manner.  Secretary Wang made it so Westerners could see the Chinese Communist Party members’ vigilance in times of peace and their fine quality of being farsighted.  Third, Secretary Wang Yang also made it so Westerners, especially Westerners with ‘speaking authority’ like Mr. Friedman, could increase their knowledge of China’s enlightened nature, openness, and frankness and sincerity.

Therefore, I salute Secretary Wang Yang here for producing an ‘ad’ in the New York Times for Guangdong and for China! (Source: People’s Net)

Mei-Zhong Note: Below are two different translated versions of the last five paragraphs of Friedman’s article.  The first accompanied the above article in New Bulletin.  The second was published recently in Global Times.  Both have been translated back into English with the editing that was performed on them in the Chinese media made clear.  The New Bulletin version was the shorter of the two.

From New Bulletin:

From Global Times:

The Implications of Western Articles in the Chinese Media

An Original Article for Mei-Zhong Guanxi by Anton Lee Wishik II

Following the recent inspections into how the Chinese media has translated and republished articles and editorials that originated in the New York Times, it seems that there is a segment of observers who insist on placing this sort of analysis within the context of the whole ‘China vs. the West, the West vs. China, which media’s flaws are more egregious’ debate. While there is a time, place, and method for such discussions, the most fascinating element involved may be suffering in overlooked obscurity. Namely, the insight which has been made available into the editing, censoring, and decision-making involved in determining what is fit for print. For the readership, both Western and Chinese, who is always forced to make do with the finished product as it has been presented to them by the Chinese media, there is now a ‘first-draft’ of sorts which can be examined, and when compared with the published version, can reveal which ideas have been blotted out with red ink and, just as significantly, which ones received at least tacit approval and were allowed to make it on the page. In the past, it could be argued that comparing articles in the Chinese media with corresponding articles in the Western media could offer similar grounds for comparison, but with large contingents doubting the Western media’s credibility of late, the sort of comparisons discussed here are less open to attack. In essence, in these finite instances, we have been made privy to the inner workings of a normally opaque mechanism.

Now some may argue that it is impossible to ascertain whether certain passages have been left out due to editing, censorship, or irrelevance. To which the response is: maybe to a certain extent but not entirely. By examining which passages are expunged, whether or not the surrounding information was also removed, how other media sources handled the same topic or article, what the official government position on the subject is, past practices in similar situations, how closely an issue relates to China’s interests, how something would spur/hinder sales of the media’s product, and the like, it is possible to arrive at some ‘educated conclusions.’

For example, in the recent translation and republication of Thomas Friedman’s editorial, ‘A Biblical Seven Years’, the specific cost cited as the total expenditure for all Olympic infrastructure in Beijing, $43 billion, was left out of the republication in both the People’s Net and Global Times versions. Thus, it would be safe to conclude that despite the fact that this figure is not impossible to find in the Chinese media’s coverage, there may have been those who decided it was best to keep its prominence in check. Conversely, the fact that two of the more sensitive topics that Friedman touched on, poverty in China and the nature of China’s enemies, were each included by one media source but not the other seems to imply that in these cases, the editors/censors have made judgment calls on the severity of the statements. Additionally, the divergent conclusions that People’s Net and Global Times reached on what to include may denote some level of disagreement on how certain principles should be interpreted. It also seems quite clear that the reason behind both media sources choosing to cut much of the second half of the editorial, which was concerned with US issues, had much more to do with the interests of their readership and the lack of a direct connection to China than any sort of censorship or editing principles. The alteration of the title would also seem to fall in this category, as ‘Compared to China, the US is a Third World Country’ draws a lot more eyeballs than ‘A Biblical Seven Years’, especially in China.

Mr. Friedman’s latest editorial, ‘Postcard from South China’, was almost immediately translated and republished in Global Times. Nearly all of the areas where the republication veered from the original were found in the last four paragraphs, while the first nine paragraphs made it through mostly untouched. This clearly reduces the likelihood that the changes that were decided upon were selected simply due to length considerations as that principal would lead to an equal likelihood of each paragraph being cut up. Thus, it would seem that there would have to be some content-based criteria being applied. The last five paragraphs of the republication, including how they were edited, are included below:

As for what didn’t make it in, two areas of interest stand out. First, many references to Wang Yang were purged, including his name, standing as a Politburo member, a quite complementary introduction, and most everything he was quoted as saying. It appears highly unlikely that this could be construed as arbitrary editing, and more likely could be seen as an unwillingness to publicize the source of this ‘courageous experimentation’ before its results have become clear. Regardless of the reasoning, it’s a fascinating development in what would seem to be a relatively benign area. Just as interesting yet less mysterious was the sensitivity to references of a Chinese-led boycott and the development of civil society. Apparently when Friedman ventured into such territory, he left the limits of accepted discourse behind him. As for the reasoning behind the inclusion in the above graphic of the mostly unchanged fifth-to-last paragraph, it is instructive in that this paragraph embodies the most direct commentary on what the Communist Party should do, and by implication, what it has not done up to this point in time. Thus, this passage’s inclusion makes it clear how magnanimous the Chinese media can be towards their Western counterparts when the two sides’ views coincide with each other.

Finally, it is worth noting that in addition to the popularity of ‘The World Is Flat’, Thomas Friedman has now had two editorials published in the Chinese media in the span of a week, has been invited to meet with a Politburo member, and has had one of his books read by and strongly affect said Politburo member. Perhaps China has finally found a member of the Western press that they can get behind. Now, if only the Chinese media would publish first drafts of all their articles.

The original Friedman article can be found here.  The article as it appeared in Global Times can be found here.

Note:  Credit to the Black and White Cat blog for such an accessible method of presenting the before and after comparisons.

By Wang Long (王龙)

Original Publication:

China Net (中国网）

Link to Original Article

Translated by Anton Lee Wishik II for Mei-Zhong Guanxi

The successful holding of the Beijing Olympics is causing Westerners, in their wonderment, to begin to reflect.  On August 27th, the New York Times published the article ‘Compared to China, the US is a Third World Country’ in which the author gasped with admiration that China “is unrivaled.”  The basis for this was that “China did not build the magnificent $43 billion infrastructure for these games, or put on the unparalleled opening and closing ceremonies, simply by the dumb luck of discovering oil. No, it was the culmination of seven years of national investment, planning, concentrated state power, national mobilization and hard work….compare arriving at La Guardia’s dumpy terminal in New York City and…the crumbling infrastructure in Manhattan with…Shanghai’s sleek airport and…the magnetic levitation train.”(1)  This makes it impossible for them not to ask themselves: In the end, “who is living in a third world country?”

This American’s reflection is almost like a blind person feeling around for something.  It only touches on China’s flourishing side and could easily produce misconceptions among readers, like the article’s description that the “China presented through the Olympics was enormously powerful.”  Of course, this illustrates China’s fast rise, but what cannot be avoided is that there are still some sentiments which Westerners can only sense and cannot explain in words.  Since he states that “by driving a car for one hour you can see China’s other kind of scenery”, the so-called ‘unrivaledness’ is undoubtedly self-contradictory.  From a theory standpoint, these kinds of fawning statements are no different from malicious ‘destruction through excessive praise.’

It should be said that the tricks used by some Westerners involving ‘destruction through excessive praise’ on China are not at all clever.  If one is not ignorant, they certainly could not take them seriously.  For example, Britain’s former Prime Minister Mr. Blair recently called into question the phenomenon in which some, under the pretext of the Olympics, used ‘destruction through excessive praise’ on China.  He feels that China is in the middle of a journey and is quickly going forward yet it is very clear that the journey is not over.  He warns that observers should try to think of a way to point out that the trip is unfinished, but should also acknowledge the distance they have already traveled.  What’s interesting is that this article’s original title was ‘Perhaps China’s Rise Has Been Exaggerated,’ but upon its publishing by the Wall Street Journal the title became ‘We Can Help China Embrace the Future’ and was then translated as ‘We Must Eliminate Historical Arrogance Towards China’ upon its publishing in China.  That the title of the same article would be labeled with a different title in different countries is not at all novel.  The main point is that the alternating tension and release going on between what is being expressed mentally causes a long-lasting impression.

Speaking practically and realistically, regardless of which viewpoint is taken, China’s rapid rise is an indisputable fact.  Recently, the Chinese economy’s rate of growth has been the fastest in the world, China holds the world’s second largest foreign currency reserves, and is already the principal new force in the international economic arena.  However, economic development does not signify that the cultural ability to bring forth new ideas has been improved, it only illustrates that China is a rapidly developing economic power.  Overall national strength is still definitely a ways away from that of developed countries.  From this angle, Mr. Blair was not shooting at random.  While China’s rise has been exaggerated, it is also an indisputable fact.

Firstly, the vanity inherent in traditional Chinese culture is, in effect, enlargened.  With the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony as an example, everyone knew that everything it showed was China’s best posture.  However, this kind of ‘best posture’ only represents the Beijing Olympics.  If you choose this one point to represent the totality, it certainly was not a normal posture.  Secondly, the West has been troubled by China’s rise for a long while.  After going through the torch relay, they understood that a forceful ‘anti-China’ stance could only run counter to their interests.  Consequently, on many issues they deliberately catered to Chinese preferences.  It was almost as if whatever the popular sentiment of the Chinese preferred, they would follow along and say the same thing.  Although on the surface the two sides are not mutually exclusive, it’s essentially a public opinion trap.  While they exaggerate China’s rise, at the same time, they also exaggerate the ‘China threat.’

Of course, intelligent Chinese people are not necessarily in the dark on some of the ulterior motives behind ‘praise’(2), it’s just that vanity makes them feel it would be a pity to give it up.  The article ‘Perhaps China’s Rise Has Been Exaggerated’ became ‘We Must Eliminate Historical Arrogance Towards China.’  This kind of ‘thinking graft’ technique is indeed ‘unrivaled.’  However, this is an extremely absurd phenomenon, just like how behind prosperity there is poverty yet there are not many people who face up to the realities of life.  Along with the magnetic levitation trains, sleek airports, and skyscrapers, the scenes in the vast majority of China’s regions appear very uncoordinated with people’s welfare still one of the most important social issues.  To use Blair’s words, Europe’s population distribution is approximately 5% rural while China’s is nearly 60% rural, and in the future, China will seek to shift hundreds of millions of people from the villages to the cities.  What he fears is that, in a period in which a kind of vanity is seen as the truth, it will be difficult to avoid overestimating the ‘threat of China’ in the West.

It’s possible that Mr. Blair’s words are similarly not lacking in subjective elements.  However, through his ideas, it can be seen that some Westerners’ knowledge of China tends to be rational.  Disregarding whether or not China’s rise has been exaggerated, their objective appraisals of China are sufficient proof that the real ‘China threat’ lies in people’s groundless fears.  For this, of course we should thank the Olympics for enabling Westerners to see a relatively real China.  This is because it is not only not as they originally imagined it as ignorant and barbaric, it is also not how some imagined it as rich and flourishing.  The real China is one that is quickly moving towards modernization and a civilized nation.  Most Chinese people sincerely wish for world peace and are all full of hope as they look towards the future.

The ancient Chinese writer Fan Zhongyan (范仲淹 ) once said, “Don’t be fond of things, don’t be sad of yourself.”  Reading this from a psychological standpoint, this state is one of high self-confidence.  By using this standard to consider the psychology of Chinese society, one realizes that nowadays nihilism and habitual indiscipline have combined to form an excessively sensitive and manic group.  Upon being hearing a few niceties, they are pleased with themselves, but in the opposite case, they are uncontrollably indignant.  In fact, any kind of transformation and development is destined to be a kind of quest and success and failure are both normal.  What is most regrettable is not failure, but is to be fond of exaggerating successes and shunning defeats.  In regards to many of the specific issues mentioned by Mr. Blair, many people have undoubtedly recognized that China’s rise has been exaggerated but have still not altered their habit of exalting in success so how can they know that this is the lowest level of self-‘destruction through excessive praise.’

Translator’s Notes:

1.    The author has sometimes used passages from the translation without using quotes.  They have also sometimes mixed sentences with their own writing and passages from the original without using quotes.  I have done my best to insert quotes where necessary to show that certain passages came from the original.

2.  In an earlier version of this post, the phrase ‘赞美’ was mistranslated as ‘praising America.’  The error lay in the fact that 美 is also used to represent the US.

For background on the translation of the Thomas Friedman editorial to which this article refers, please see this mei-zhong post.  To read Tony Blair’s editorial, please see this link.

Note: This site has no relation to the author or original publication. This translation was done for informational purposes only and not for commercial gain or to express any personal views. To contact the author or original publication, please check the details listed above.

An Original Article for Mei-Zhong Guanxi by Anton Lee Wishik II

Update on 8/31:  I have just posted a translation of an editorial written for China Net which was partly based on responding to Friedman’s article as it was presented in translated form.

In the wake of Black and White Cat’s excellent post on a translation of a New York Times article and this site’s previous work on examining translations in both the Western and Chinese media, the following is a brief look at two different examples of the republishing of Thomas Friedman’s recent editorial in the Chinese media.  It’s important to note that Friedman is relatively well-known in certain circles in China due to the popularity of ‘The World Is Flat’ which has been translated into Chinese and is easily found for purchase on the mainland.

By looking at which parts of the article were included, excluded, and altered, it is possible to gain some insight into how the Chinese media presents Western articles to their readers.  The two different translated versions of the article were republished by People’s Net (人民网) and Global Times (环球时报).

Points of interest:

1.    The title.  The original article is titled ‘A Biblical Seven Years.’  In the People’s Net version, the title has become ‘The New York Times: Compared to China, America is a Third World Country’ (纽约时报：与中国比，美国是第三世界国家). This is based on the line in the original and included in this translation in which Friedman writes, “Then ask yourself: Who is living in the third world country?”  People’s Net did include the original title as a footnote although they listed it as simply ‘Seven Years’ (七年).  Global Times did not include the Third World line at all in the title or body of their version.

Global Times chose to title the article ‘If You Want to See the Future, You Must Go to China’ (想看到未来，必须到中国去). This of course refers to Friedman’s last line, included in this version, in which he wrote, “I never want to tell my girls…that they have to go to China to see the future.”  This line was not included at all in the People’s Net version, illustrating the different focal points chosen by the two news sources.  The original title was mentioned by Global Times.

2.    The cost.  In both translations, the specific figure of $43 billion dollars that Friedman cites in paragraph 3 of his article as the cost of the Beijing Olympics infrastructure was not included.  In the People’s Net version, the entire paragraph was translated and only the cost was left out.  In Global Times, the sentence with the statistic was left out, but the next sentence was included.

3.    What to include and what to exclude.  The People’s Net version included Friedman’s line that “if you drive an hour out of Beijing, you meet the vast dirt-poor third world of China” (如果你从北京往外走，驱车一个小时就会看到中国广阔的、非常贫穷的第三世界).  Global Times did not include this although the line which followed on the rich parts of each country was included.  Global Times included the line “We [the US] have real enemies; theirs [China’s] are small and mostly domestic” although they left out the ‘small’ part (我们拥有真正的敌人，而他们的敌人主要是国内问题).  People’s Net did not include this line although the rest of the paragraph was there.

4.  What is irrelevant.  Much of the second half of Friedman’s article, which focuses more on US issues (the election, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) was not included in either translation.  John McCain’s name, mentioned once in the original, is not included in either translation.  Obama’s name, included five times in the original, is mentioned twice by People’s Net and not at all by Global Times (whose version was the shorter of the two).  The original article contains 14 paragraphs (disregarding the one line paragraph “Then ask yourself: Who is living in the third world country?”), four of which have nothing to do with China.  The People’s Net version included 11 paragraphs, 9 of which were related to China.  Global Times printed four paragraphs, all with references to China.  Obviously, some of this is due to editing and presentation.  However, an article which originally contained a fair amount of focus on US issues has become more geared towards China.  People’s Net did make it explicit that they were publishing an excerpt of the original while Global Times did not.

The original article can be found here, the article as republished by People’s Net (人民网) can be found here, and the article as republished by Global Times (环球时报) can be found here.

For some background information on Global Times, please see this article.

By Yang Kaidong (杨凯冬)

Original Publication:

Study Times (学习时报）

Link to Original Article

Translated by Anton Lee Wishik II for Mei-Zhong Guanxi

On August 8th, President Bush attended the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony.  This was the last time that he would be visiting China as president.  Looking back on Sino-US relations eight years ago, one realizes that in those eight years, a large change has occurred in Sino-US relations.  Substantive changes have occurred in certain aspects of America’s China policy, and Sino-US relations have already entered a new age.  This kind of transformation is both strategic and long-term.

Before Bush took office, he had criticized the Clinton-era China policy as excessively weak and had positioned Sino-US relations as one of ‘strategic competitors.’  Not long after Bush assumed the presidency, the ‘Plane Collision Incident’ caused Sino-US relations to fall into a tense state.  At one point, Bush had classified China as the same as Iraq and Russia as one of America’s supposed three enemies.  The 9/11 terrorist attacks became an unexpected turning point in Sino-US relations.  For one thing, the incident caused the Bush government to shift its attention on foreign policy to anti-terrorism.  For another thing, within five hours of 9/11, the Chinese national chairman at the time, Jiang Zemin, took the initiative in getting a message to Bush in which he condemned terrorism and expressed compassion and sympathy and thus brought the two nations’ strategic relations closer together.  Afterwards, the opening in 2003 of six party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program and the opening of the Sino-US Strategic Economic Dialogue at the end of 2006 caused bilateral relations to enter a period of stable development.

The manifestation of stable development in Sino-US relations lies in several aspects listed below:

First, the effects of interaction between the national leaders have been outstanding.  The frequency of interaction between the leaders of the two countries has deepened understanding, promoted friendship, and has not only established a foundation for long-term development in bilateral relations, but in responding to a series of concrete issues, has also clearly shown the path to follow and has ensured the basic direction towards stable cooperation in Sino-US relations will not be wavered from.

Second, the two nations have set up new cooperative mechanisms and platforms.  After the continuation of mechanisms such as the Sino-US Strategic Dialogue and the US-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, the leaders of the two nations proposed a new mechanism, the Strategic Economic Dialogue.  It is both a beneficial supplement to the mechanisms described above and also effectively links them together.  By going from the strategic level to taking hold of the steady development of bilateral economic relations and going from economic issues to beginning to push forward the improvement of strategic relations, this mechanism has been brought to bear with an important use.

Third, military exchanges have been completely restored.  Rumsfeld was able to achieve a China visit, and Guo Boxiong (郭伯雄) succeeded in visiting the US.  The two militaries cooperated in launching their first search and rescue exercise at sea.  Contact between members of the two militaries became increasingly frequent.  From different sides, it has been shown that Sino-US relations have now completely come out from under the shadow of the ‘Plane Collision Incident’ and are moving towards establishing mutual trust and a new era of striving for cooperation.

Fourth, cooperation between China and the US on major international issues has become closer and more effective.  Among these issues, the coordination and cooperation involving the ‘North Korean nuclear crisis’ have been the most striking.

Fifth, China and the US have mutually stabilized the state of affairs in the Taiwan Strait.  The US policy on Taiwan has been positively put into play in reigning in the power of ‘Taiwan independence’ to provoke and in promoting peace in the Taiwan Strait.  The US position of ‘preventing independence’ has had an awesome effect on the power of the Taiwan independence movement and has brought about a situation in which both China and the US are jointly containing Taiwan independence.

With the Chinese economy having gone through close to 30 years of rapid growth and with long-term political stability, the US has gradually come to realize that China is not a force bent on breaking the international system, but is a positive collaborator.  There is now no market for ‘The Collapse of China’ which had been all the rage in the US at the end of the last century.  While the US’s strategic decisions regarding China became pragmatic and moderate, at the same time, a corresponding transformation was taking place in China’s strategic decisions regarding the US.  In recent years, with the increase in Sino-US bilateral exchanges and the deepening of mechanisms for dialogue, both China and the US firmly believe that the continuous management of security issues within bilateral relations is no longer the primary issue.  Each side would not use military measures to solve differences in bilateral relations.  Current Sino-US relations are really exactly like how State Council Vice Premier Wang Qishan (王岐山) described them during the fourth round of the Strategic Economic Dialogue, “For both China and the US, each one could not separate from the other.”  Scholars have described current relations as ‘a form of complicated mutual dependence.’

As a result of economic globalization, Sino-US mutual dependence ultimately displays the formation domestically of a collective interest and structure for mutual dependence in each country.  Bilateral relations have already surpassed that of governments representing the countries relations and have developed to the point where the association between the two societies is increasingly close.  Both China’s industrial exports to the US and the US’s investment and trading enterprises in China have become mainstays in each country’s domestic economy.  For both China and the US, the degree of economic dependence is continuously increasing.  Whether seen from the Chinese viewpoint or the US viewpoint, the situation is the same.  For example, in looking at trade between the two countries, Chinese exports to the US are trending upwards both as a proportion of total foreign exports and as a proportion of China’s GDP.  Also, for American exports to China, they are similarly trending upwards as a proportion of total foreign exports and US GDP.

Ten years ago, the main axis of the US’s China policy was ‘contact’ and through contact, the entrance of China into the international system.  At the time, America’s greatest worry was that China would reject the international system, go its own way, and challenge the existing international system.  Now, economic globalization has pushed Sino-US relations to a strategic level of mutual dependence.   According to former Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick, by joining most international mechanisms, China is already a member of the international system.  This past April, during the welcoming ceremony for Chairman Hu Jintao’s visit to the US, President Bush stated that “As stakeholders in the international system, our two countries share numerous strategic interests.”  In today’s international system, both China and the US benefit from progress in the stability and globalization of the international order.  Maintaining the stable development of the existing order and progress is in accordance with both countries basic interest.  Currently, the US is the greatest beneficiary in the international economic order and needs to maintain the existing international economic order.  Also, as China is an up and coming country with a market economy, the contributions of her stable development to the international economy are increasingly great, and its right to speak on the international economic order is continuously increasing.  China and the US have already become the two ‘engines’ leading the global economic lifeline.  They are generating a very important influence on the global economy.  It’s just like Chairman Hu Jintao has said, “Sino-US relations have already greatly exceeded the bilateral category and increasingly contain global significance.”

Although the Bush government’s foreign policy was put into effect under a banner of unilateralism, military force, and democracy promotion, the results it brought were an increase in Anti-American sentiment and a rise in the power of extremism.  Thus, the US became increasingly isolated globally.  But what should be noted is that entering the twenty-first century, Sino-US relations have developed more stably than before, and this is the result of the two countries’ mutual effort.  For one thing, all along China has been unwavering in persisting in developing relations with the US in a constructively cooperative manner and all along has grasped the general Sino-US situation from a high strategic level and long-term view.  For another thing, even with the departure of Zoellick, the US didn’t let the tea get cold with his departure, and ‘responsible stakeholder’ remained at the core of the US’s relatively vigorous new strategic framework on China.  Not only did Paulson and other new members of the ‘China clique’ carry on and develop things, they also repeatedly received Bush’s personal assurance and support.  This is an important sign of Sino-US relations increasingly moving towards maturity.

Note: This site has no relation to the author or original publication. This translation was done for informational purposes only and not for commercial gain or to express any personal views. To contact the author or original publication, please check the details listed above.