CHAPTER I
CONTEMPORARY
CULTURE AND
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
As the new millennium approaches, humankind confronts
two great trends: the multi-polarization of the world configuration and the
globalization of the world economy. Massive flows of materials, information,
capital and ideas are involved in these two trends. This is a strong shock to
the old international order; consequently, relations among states and groups of
states are being correspondingly readjusted. Changes in trends and public morals
are influenced by various factors, among which culture becomes increasingly
prominent. In the evolution of the global interaction of cultures new
international relations must duly be born. Precisely against this grand
background, the present article attempts to analyze contemporary cultures and
their impacts on international relations and strategies.
THE NATURE OF
CULTURE
The Meaning of
Culture.
Different
scholars see different connotations for culture. Some statisticians claim at
least 160. The British anthropologist Tyler wrote that culture is that complex
whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, moral, custom, and any other
capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. American
anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn stated that, culture is a history-created system
of survival types, dominant or recessive, having tendencies shared by the whole
group or by some particular part in a certain period of time. A German
anthropologist observed that culture is a form of life; its pillar is the power
of thought; its scope includes rational knowledge; its main content is the form
of what used to be the existence, the compulsory knowledge or insight, the
conception of objects and the command of language. Other scholars saw the
fundamental attribute of culture as human creativity: creation by men and all
that men have created, be it material and its products, or spirit and its
products. In other words, all activities that men have been engaged in can be
referred to as culture.1 All in all, in its broad sense, culture
refers to the sum of the material and spiritual wealth that has been created in
the historical practice of human society. In its narrow sense, culture is the
social ideology and its corresponding systems and organizations, including
viewpoints and ideas of politics, law, ethics, arts, religions, science and
compatible systems. In no dimension should culture be perceived as static;
culture is a dynamic process.
Culture and
Civilization.
Quite a few
people identify civilization with culture. But more agree that the latter
comprises the former. Civilization re-creates culture on certain conditions; it
is the product of culture developed to a higher level. Civilization is
relatively stable, but will not remain on an existing level. The use of language
is an embodiment of culture, but the invention of writings shows that culture
develops in a new era of civilization. The wide use of modern information
technology implements human social life in a new way. The application of the
electronic media and the internet makes it possible for material and spiritual
products to move globally in tremendous quantity and at an extraordinary pace;
this has become the latest hallmark of human civilization.
As the new century proceeds, the culture of the
information revolution and the internet will exert invaluable impacts on human
life and behavior. They know no geographic or national confines; they cross
national borders and obviate the barriers of the time and space; and they affect
the process of modern society with these characteristics. Obviously, the impacts
of modern culture on international relations and international strategy are
increasingly evident and strong.
The Diversity
of Modern Culture. Our global village has a
population of 6 billion, constituting over 2500 nations or about 200 countries
with diversified and variegated cultures throughout the long process of human
history. Each culture is justifiable -- otherwise it would not exist, grow and
develop -- albeit each differs in its traditions and characters. That is why our
world is so profuse and full of life. Some areas are birthplaces of human
civilizations; these include the Yellow River valley in China, the Ganges valley
in India, the Nile valley in Egypt, regions along the Aegean Sea in Europe, and
Mesopotamia in West Asia. Peoples on those lands, generation after generation,
by hard work have created affluent and exuberant cultures, moving from one apex
of civilization to another: writing, architecture, painting, religions,
lifestyles, political systems and so on. Samuel Huntington, a Harvard professor,
identified eight civilizations from among all the cultures in the modern world,
i.e., Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin
American and African.2 Although it is arguable whether his method is
scientific, at least it demonstrates that even Huntington has to admit the
variety of modern culture. All civilizations are a fountain of colorful waters
gushing up in the long process of the history of human culture.
Only by situating ourselves in this long process, can
we examine and explore the relations between culture and changes in
international strategy. Cultural diversity is linked inevitably with the
multi-polarization trend of the world configuration. Western civilization has
developed and risen continuously in the long evolutionary history of Western
culture. Modern Western civilization is one of its apexes; contemporary Western
civilization is another. The contribution of Western countries to the family of
nations is characterized by their developed economy, advanced science and
technology and unique political system. Non-Western countries, in their process
of modernization, absorb the essence of the Western civilization, but do not
dogmatically copy it. Japan, Singapore and South Korea are the best examples. In
their process of modernization, they have rejuvenated their traditional
cultures, while drawing upon Western civilization. EU members, even with the
single currency they have presently realized, have not surrendered their own
cultural characters. Civilizations inevitably influence and learn from one
another. They do so even more with access to the means of modern communication.
Thus, contemporary cultural diversity, which stems from history as well as from
reality, is an objective being independent of human will.
The Core of
Culture Is Its Value Orientation.
In
considering the diversity of contemporary culture, the key to be kept in mind is
that the core of any culture whatsoever is its values: different cultures have
different values. The ethno-centrists deem their national culture to be supreme
and hence their values as its most outstanding manifestation. This is
“West-centrism”: Western countries extol their cultures as supreme in the
modern era. They assume that as values of freedom and democracy are universally
viable and promote the values of Western culture across the world via advanced
technology and its powerful cultural carriers. Huntington holds that the Western
civilization is valuable not in its universality, but in its uniqueness, it is
not advisable to impose the values of the Western civilization on the
non-Western societies. Many people in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe
agree that world cultures coexist in relative terms. Each culture is different
from the other; each has its own advantage and criteria of values. This is the
basic point of the trans-cultural relativism. Trans-cultural relativists not
only recognize the diversity of world cultures, but also deem the values
orientation as the core of all cultures. There are many theories on culture, but
whether ethnocentrism, trans-cultural relativism, universal cultural values, or
cultural internationalism all have something to do with values which is the core
issue of culture.
MODELS
BY WHICH CULTURE INFLUENCES INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The influence of the cultural factor in contemporary
international relations has caught the attention of quite a few scholars.
Lawrence Harrison published his book entitled Who
Prospers? How Cultural Values Shape Economic and Political Success? in 1992;
Samuel Huntington published his article, entitled “The Clash of
Civilizations?,” in 1993; Thomas Sowell published his book, Race
and Culture: A World View in 1994; Francis
Fukuyama published his book Trust: The
Social Virtue and the Creation of Prosperity in 1995. Works like these have
illuminated the impact of culture on international relations. This can be summed
up in five models3 which are interconnected in some areas and
distinct only according to their particular emphasis.
1. Culture has broad determinant impact on the
achievements of the state. Culture plays an important role in providing the
spiritual, ethical and economic conditions for human life. In modern capitalist
development, nothing can be achieved without attention to the cultural factor.
Lawrence Harrison wrote in the above-mentioned book that cultural values and
ideas induce in different ethnic groups such phenomena as persistent volatility
and injustice in Latin America, the economic miracle of South Korea and
China’s Taiwan, and the achievements of Japan. Thomas Sowell stated in his
book, Race and Culture: A World View, that
race, tribe and cultural differentials have significant impacts on our time, for
particular people usually handle the economic and social demands in their life
in their own particular way. This basic linkage between national culture and
national achievements indicates the importance of culture to the achievements of
the state. It plays an important role in determining the economic destiny of the
state and nation, and thus impacts on their status and role in international
relations.
2. Culture is the navigator in making decision. Some people see culture
as analogous to a filter of knowledge. Leaders approach problems and make
decisions through different cultural prisms. Thus, culture plays an important
role in leaders’ judgement of, and decision-making in, international
relations. Specific states, peoples and their leaders are influenced by their
distinctive cultures, which reflect their different values, interests, habits
and wishes. Mis-assessment of those differentials will lead to misconception,
misunderstanding and mis-judgement. No doubt, the cultural systems link closely
with international relations. Alastair I. Johnston indicated in 1995 that
different states have different strategic emphases, which originate from their
early or established experience. They are affected by the philosophy, politics,
culture and cognitive identity of the states and to some extent of their elites.
International relations are like a massive ocean, nations are like sailing
vessels, while culture plays the role of a navigator. Cultural concepts strongly
affect the viewpoints of state leaders on policy issues. An individual leader or
a leading collective takes its cultural concepts consciously or unconsciously as
the coordinate in decisions. Therefore, culture has decisive impacts on leaders
in addressing various issues of international relations.
3. Culture is the designer of social and economic
structures. Francis Fukuyama stresses the sociality of culture, or social
credit, in his book “Trust”. He assumes that the welfare and competitiveness
of a state are constrained by a universal cultural identity, which symbolizes
the working of social credit and provides a precondition for economic success.
Nations are different in their social credit, which inevitably will affect their
international cooperation. Therefore, culture controls the degree of the social
credit and affects the nature of the cooperative organs. It provides the
dominant blueprint for social and economic institutions, and hence exerts
tremendous impact on national behavior and its fate in the international
community.
4. Culture is an important variable in international
relations. This point was fully elucidated by Samuel Huntington in his article The
Clash of Civilizations? He judged that the fundamental source of conflict in
the post-Cold War world would not be ideological or primarily economic. The
great divisions among humankind and the dominant source of conflict will be
cultural. The principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations
and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will be the
battle lines of the future. He even asserted that the next world war, if there
is one, will be between civilizations. This theory perceives culture as the
dominant framework of international relations, the primary base of the national
behavior, and the main source of international conflicts.
Most scholars do not agree with the theory of clash of civilizations, but
they do agree that culture is an important variable in the contemporary
international relations.
5. The commonality and complementarity of cultures
provide a crucial base for harmony in international relations. Culture can also
be referred to as the booster of international relations.
Arnold Toynbee claimed as early as 1934 that there is a strong, concerted
and harmonious tendency in the rise and fall of civilizations. In 1948, he
stressed further the character of culture and the conformity of different
civilizations in social structure; this reached its peak in the era of
industrialization. In 1946, Northrop assumed in his book,
The Encounter of the East and West, that the East and West can meet not only
because they are talking about the same thing, but also because they are
explaining different but complementary things. Ernest Gellner highlighted some
of characteristics of the industrialized society in 1983. The consequence of
industrialization is a global compound of basically harmonious industrial
cultures. This is the theory of the cultural melting pot. One of its important
points relates to the framework of eras. Though social structures vary widely
the basic character of all advanced economies are relatively uniform. They have
identical institutions, such as a central bank, a department of treasury,
various research centers, schools of different educational levels, organized
systems such as the military and thousands of other corresponding institutions.
The application of information technology and its impacts on social development
has proven this. The uniformity and complementarity of world cultures gives a
huge and inescapable boost to international relations.
3
THE MAIN FOCI
OF THE CURRENT CULTURAL STRUGGLE
Since the end of the Cold War, the role of culture in
international relations has been growing. Western civilization takes the lead
among the variety of world cultures. By using their strengths they pursue
“human rights diplomacy” and manipulate international organizations; by
using the market economy, the power of commodities and even resorting to
military force they achieve their strategic goals. This is manifested mainly in
the following aspects.
1. Human Rights
Diplomacy. Western politicians through balance-and-maneuver are concerned
mostly with their own interests. Western civilization is used as an instrument
to pursue these interests. Human rights, which are part of Western civilization,
are most broadly applicable. Western politicians view human rights diplomacy as
their “sophisticated weapon”; they are the most important advantage of
liberal democratic nations in the struggle to expand their influence.4
Some Western countries led by the United States have launched attacks time and
again at the meetings of the UN Human Rights Commission. Those that have been
accused are always developing countries. The attackers are insufferably
arrogant, because they think their heavenly mission is to make so-called freedom
and social justice popular among the whole of humankind through their
demonstration of democratic forms. To them, the Western lifestyle is the beacon
to be imitated by other nations, and the Western social system is the role model
to be followed by other societies. On human rights, Deng Xiaoping pointed out
that, on the pretext that China has an unsatisfactory human rights record and an
irrational and illegitimate socialist system, Western countries attempt to
jeopardize its national sovereignty. “National sovereignty is far more
important than human tights, but they often infringe upon the sovereignty of
poor, weak countries of the Third World. Their talk about human rights, freedom
and democracy is designed only to safeguard the interests of the strong, rich
countries, which take advantage of their strength to bully weak countries, and
which pursue hegemony and practice power politics.”5 Obviously,
human rights are used to interfere in the sovereignty of others, to violate
their sovereignty, and even to subvert the regimes of other nations. This is the
essence of the Western human rights diplomacy.
2. Reigning
International Institutions. Western countries impose their own will on
international institutions in an attempt to make them follow the values of
Western civilization and serve Western interests. Professor Huntington confessed
in his “The Clash of Civilizations?”
that the U.S. controls international political and security institutions, using
“the world community” to replace “the Free World.” Decisions made at the
UN Security Council or the IMF, which reflect the interests of the West, are
presented to the world as reflecting the desire of the world community.6
“The West in effect is using international institutions, military power and
economic resources to run the world in ways that will maintain Western
predominance, protect Western interests and promote Western political and
economic values.” Efforts are made “to induce other peoples to adopt Western
ideas concerning democracy and human rights”. It is particularly notable that
the UN human rights activities often are seriously interfered in by some of the
Western countries. They regard their own values and human rights criteria as
universal tenets, and do their best to ensure that the UN plays its role in a
way that conforms to their national interests. More often than not, UN
humanitarian interventions are but a pretext used by some Western countries to
pursue power politics, to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations,
and to violate their sovereignty. The handling of the Somali issue is a most
revealing case in point.
3. New
Interventionism Implemented via Military Means. The U.S.-led NATO
outrageously launched a brutal bombardment on the sovereign state of Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia for as long as 78 days from March through June, 1999.
During that period, NATO used missiles to attack the Chinese Embassy in
Yugoslavia, openly violating the principles of international law and the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The atrocity inflicted by the U.S.-led NATO
on Yugoslavia is a typical example of hegemonism and power politics under the
cloak of civilization; it demonstrates how the U.S. carries out its new
international relations concept of “humanitarian intervention”. The basic
theory of the new interventionism has three aspects: firstly, the superiority of
human rights over sovereignty; secondly, that the whole world should be
“democratized”; thirdly, that the democratization is not to be confined by
national borders. Thus, the West can implement so-called humanitarian
intervention in any country once identified according to the West’s own
interpretation as a human rights violator. NATO used the most advanced military
means in its bombardment of Yugoslavia under the pretext of “stalling ethnic
cleansing”. This new strategic concept initiated by the U.S. also demonstrates
that the U.S. wants NATO to become the military instrument for its hegemonic
ambition. The basic principle set by the UN Charter is to maintain the sovereign
equality of all its members; not to interfere in the internal affairs of any
nation; to settle international disputes by peaceful means; to refrain from the
threat or use of force against national territorial integrity. The norms of
contemporary international relations are the result of the evolution of human
civilization, the precondition of the healthy development of international
relations, and what any civilized nation must scrupulously abide by. NATO’s
military aggression on the Yugoslavia is a flagrant violation of the principles
of international relations. As the aftermath indicates, using military means to
implement new interventionism is unpopular. The international community should
take measures to prevent the hegemonic behavior such as the aggression against a
sovereign nation and interference in the internal affairs of other nations under
the guise of maintaining human rights.
4. Recourse to
the Power of Commodity. Imposing Western civilization on others by force is
an increasingly more difficult approach in the new international situation.
Therefore, the West resorts more to market forces to advance liberal and
democratic ideas and values. This is the very important cultural strategy of the
West. The West today is a society with a highly developed market economy, where
what usually are spiritual matters are marketized and commercialized. The West
led by the U.S. pays great attention to producing and exporting cultural goods,
hoping these to be the main channel in enforcing personnel contacts and the
exchange of ideas and values. The cultural products of the West and of the U.S.
in particular are exported most actively during the advance of the modern market
economy towards globalization. Due to modern science and technology, the Western
cultural products are becoming more enticing, more attractive and more
competitive. Western countries strongly support such ideological industries as
film, TV, broadcast, VCD, fax, the internet and so on. They help those
industries to develop foreign markets. The overwhelming strength of Western
cultural transmission in this age of satellite technology is undeniable. In
addition, Western countries launch attacks on some developing countries in the
name of protecting intellectual property rights to ensure the free flow of
Western civilization.
5. Strengthening
Cultural Expansion. The friction and collision in the confluence of world
civilizations shock Western civilization. Having always regarded itself as the
center of world, the West perceives the challenges as a threat, hence the birth
of “the theories of clash and of threat”. While hailing the triumph of the
liberalism of Western civilization, some are surprised to find that the
millennium of an empire under the Western civilization has not yet arrived.
Since the end of the Cold War, the world is heading for the multi-polarization.
Although it will take a long time to shape a new order of international
relations, the key principle governing the new international order incontestably
should be “noninterference in other countries’ internal affairs and social
systems. It won’t work to require all the countries in the world to copy the
patterns set by the United States, Britain and France.”7 The new
world situation has reinforced the collision of the world cultures, due mainly
to the fact that Western developed nations forcibly export Western culture by
virtue of their advantageous position in economy, politics and the military.
This has given rise to a retroactive psychology and resistance in developing
nations. The West labels this resistance as a revival of nationalism. Those who
say no to the West are listed as “nationalists” and stormed with
condemnation. Huntington thus set forth nine policy suggestions to help the
Western civilization continue to play a global role. He particularly stressed
more cooperation between Europe and North America, stricter control of
international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and
values, and promotion of the involvement of non-Western states in those
institutions. He held that, the fundamental goal of NATO should be defined as
“safeguarding and maintaining the Western civilization”. To him, the major
responsibility of Western leaders is to protect and promote the interests,
values and culture in the precious and unique civilization they share.
Huntington’s intention is all too evident. If the Western countries follow his
suggestions and impose Western values and interests on others, the international
order and international relations certainly will fail to develop in a benign
way; it will be the opposite.
As human society approaches the new millennia,
international relations are changing in a dazzling manner. The United States is
pressing on with implementing its goal of an uni-polar world. But the
multi-polar tendency is developing through complex struggles. Great power
relations are readjusting in the new situation. Countries are formulating their
own national strategies in the light of their own interests, and their internal
and external environment. Politics and economics, science and technology, the
military and culture, all are basic factors in these strategic calculations. In
the new century, cultural forces will be an indispensable instrument.
Contradictory interactions among different cultures exert a dual impact on the
change in international relations.
1. Independence.
The commonality resulting from cultural exchanges reinforces the interdependence
among great powers. The post-war years saw contradictory interactions shifting
back and forth in the confrontation between the two superpowers. Scrambling for
hegemony between the U.S. and the USSR was primarily one of contradictions in
international relations. Since most attention was focused on the military
confrontation, cultural factors were largely suppressed. Nevertheless, the U.S.
put forward a strategy for peaceful evolution and carried it out by using
cultural forces in a carefully scheduled way. The disintegration of the USSR and
drastic changes in East Europe overjoyed Western countries. They see their
victory in the Cold War as mainly the result of the impact of democratic ideas.
The then US President Bush said excitedly at the graduation ceremony at Yale
University in May, 1990, that the curtain of iron had disappeared, the Berlin
Wall had fallen, along with it the myth of the ideology of communism. “You
will find that the US example is working at every corner of the world.” He
stressed on another occasion in the early 1990s that as the most powerful
democracy in the world the U.S. must bear the responsibility of leading and
helping safeguard the free nations of the world and promoting and strengthening
democratic values across the world.8
Since the end of the Cold War, international
relations have been readjusting in complex contradictory interactions. Gone is
the bipolar configuration; a multi-polar tendency emerges in its instead. The
zero-sum factor in great power relations is now on the wane. Driven by the
economic globalization in particular, commonality in national interests
increases each day. As interdependence in economic development grows, so does
commonality in interstate political relations. As a result, the former
rivalry-alliance relations are altering. The great powers of the world are
seeking to establish a new type of relation. In recent years, China, the U.S.,
Russia, Japan and the EU have readjusted their strategy in succession and have
striven to establish bilateral partnerships and to increase exchanges in the
economy, politics, military and culture. Regular visits of national leaders and
the opening of hotlines are also conducive to increasing understanding,
dissolving differences and strengthening cooperation.
In this process of adjustment of great power
relations, not only are politics, the military and the economy full of
variables, but also culture is a vector not to be overlooked. The growing
integration resulting from cultural interactions strengthens economic
interdependence and the mechanisms of political consultation. Over recent years,
despite the discords, competition and sometimes even intensive conflicts in
great power relations, certain concessions have finally been made through
dialogues and consultations. The root-cause of the new model of the evolving
international relations is precisely the effect of the soft power of culture.
The shift in the international configuration and the adjustment of great power
relations are in fact adjustments of interests. This is closely connected with
value orientation. In this sense, the integration of cultures promotes the
interdependence of great power relations and increases their ability to seek a
commonality of interests.
2. Discord.
The cultural gap inevitably invokes discords and struggles among the great
powers. World cultures are multi-hewed; each has its positive and negative
sides. The confluence of different cultures inevitably generates frictions and
collisions. Different cultures exchange virtues in order to offset one’s own
flaws so that cultures progress upward and forward. The changes in international
relations also show contradictory cultural interactions. The above-mentioned
cultural integration is the positive side of culture; but its negative side is
also an objective reality.
Cultural gaps are one of the causes of conflicts.
Nations or groups of nations such as the U.S., Japan, China, Russia and EU
impact the changes of international configuration. The formulation of their
foreign strategies is affected by their respective value orientation. Once
involved in international relations their cultural gaps will invoke conflicts.
The reshuffling of international forces is invariably constrained by the
cultural factor.
The most outstanding issue emerging from the Sino-US
cultural gaps is that of human rights. The continuous US attacks on China and
other developing nations at the meetings of the UN Human Rights Commission stem
from its strategic goal of forcing those countries to accept U.S. democracy and
values. Viewed in a broader context, the U.S. aims at encouraging internal
Chinese “forces for economic and political liberalization”, and “ensuring
the broad and peaceful evolution of China from communism to democracy”.9 The
struggles over human rights issues reflect the conflict between two
value-systems and between Eastern and Western civilizations. These struggles
between ideologies and values have ripple effects on inter-state and state-group
relations.
Different national strategies can be discerned in
these struggles. The formulation of a national strategy and its implementation
manifest the personal role of leaders whose ideologies and styles have taken
shape in a cultural environment developed over a long term. Antagonism and
conflicts in the diplomacy of the great powers mirror cultural gaps; their
reconciliation and improvement are also the process of cultural compromises.
However, the likelihood of the conflicts caused by
cultural gaps should not be exaggerated in exploring relations between culture
and changes in international configuration. Huntington claimed that the great
divisions among humankind and the dominant source of conflict would be cultural;
that the principal conflicts of global politics would occur between nations and
groups of nations of different civilizations; and that the clash of
civilizations would be the battle lines of the future.10
Though cultural conflicts are inevitable judging from
the contradictory interactions when different civilizations in interest, the
extension of these conflicts is limited. Culture is an invisible force and its
impacts on international relations must be exerted through visible political,
economic and military bodies. But as the globalization of the world economy
develops the interaction of national interests also increases, and so does the
tendency toward interdependence among nations. One of the cases in point is the
financial crisis in 1997 in Southeast Asia, which rapidly affected Asia and the
world.
Culture is the sum of the material and spiritual
wealth generated by the historical activities of human society. The most
profound source of the cultural force lies in the accumulation of the
evolutionary process of the mode of social production. The conflicts and
integration of different cultures are constrained by this evolution. Thus, in
economic globalization conflicts caused by the confluence of different cultures
must be curbed and the advancement of common interests must promote an
all-inclusiveness among different cultures. The relative reinforcement of
cultural integration will tend proportionality to dampen the conflicts.
This contradictory interactions of cultural conflicts
and integration are apparently consistent with the adjustment of great power
relations. It is particularly notable that cultural gaps exist even among
nations that share the same cultural attribute in general and will certainly
invoke contradictions and conflicts. The Western world is anything but
monolithic. Western civilization shares homogeneity in source, but heterogeneity
in streams. They agree generally in value terms, but diverge on particular
issues in their distinct historical development. Their stances may vary in
handling particular issues of international relations inasmuch as the object of
the given issues may vary, as may the timing, background and thrust of
interests. Therefore, even in the West, the contradictory interactions of
cultures will affect the relations of nations and reflect an evolution of
conflicts and integration.
3. Ethnic and
Religious Factors. The influence of contemporary ethnic and religious
factors on the transformation of the world configuration is gaining prominence.
Culture as a complex whole involves ethnic and religious factors. Divergences in
ethnic folklore and religious faiths may invoke contradictions and conflicts.
These existed in the Cold War, but were cushioned by the bipolar confrontation
as the principal contradiction; now that the Cold War is over the
contradictions, erstwhile cushioned, are surfacing. Antagonism between Muslims
and non-Muslims can be observed in Kosovo, Bosnia, Kashmir, Nigeria, Chechnya
and Afghanistan. Some local conflicts also happen between Muslims. This kind of
conflict between Iraq and Iran lasted eight years and cost almost one million
lives. Wars between Arab nations and Iraq abounded, and conflicts occurred
between Algeria and Morocco in the Sahara. Fundamentalist turmoil has inflicted
Egypt and Algeria. People are shocked by ethnic genocide in Somali, Rwanda and
East Timor. Most hot spots in today’s international society are linked with
ethnic and religious contradictions. During the Cold War, almost all the
internal conflicts were instigated, intervened in, or even joined by the two
superpowers. Since the Cold War, this kind of internal conflicts has tended to
invite international intervention, most initiated and led by the United States
and joined positively by other Western nations. The degrees and methods of the
intervention depend on their strategic necessity. Despite some rhetoric on the
African ethnic killings the U.S. was quite inactive after its intervention in
Somalia, but it entered the fight in the Kosovo crisis.
The Balkans are strategically crucial to the common
interests of the U.S. and its European allies. The enduring ethnic conflicts in
Kosovo were unfavorable to the eastward expansion of NATO and the EU. The war
launched by the US-led NATO on Yugoslavia inflicted great suffering on the
peoples of whatever ethnicity. Besides, it impaired Sino-US and Russian-US
relations. The Kosovo conflict even lent new contradictions and differences to
Atlantic relations. Obviously, this kind of international intervention is not
advisable for addressing ethnic contradictions and conflicts, and is detrimental
to great-power relations as well. Under certain conditions, fair and just
international intervention may be helpful in settling internal ethnic or
religious conflicts. But it must be done at the request of the party and
according to the decisions of the UN Security Council. As history has vindicated
repeatedly, ethnic and religious issues are too complicated and too sensitive
for recourse to external armed intervention to be able to do any good at all.
Such intervention will only further aggravate the contradictions and leave
troubles long into the future. 11
4. The Cultural
Factor in China’s Foreign Relations. China adheres to an independent
foreign policy of peace. China forges friendly and cooperative relations with
all nations in line with the five principles of peaceful coexistence. China’s
general strategic goal is to maintain world peace and strive for a peaceful
international environment. This is good for its modernization drive.12
At the crucial historical juncture of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when world
politics was changing dramatically, Deng Xiaoping set forth the strategic
guideline: observe the situation coolly, hold our ground, act calmly, hide our
capacities, bide our time and make our contribution.13 These
guidelines constitute an important decision, proceeding from the long-term and
fundamental interests of the Chinese people in the light of the important
changes in international relations and in the correlation of international
forces. These guidelines will continue as the strategic guideline we must
follow, even though China has grown greatly in its comprehensive national
strength over recent years and is playing an increasingly greater role in
international affairs.
The formulation of China’s foreign policy and
strategic guidelines has its deep cultural roots. China as a main force for
world peace and stability has its deep historical cultural background. In terms
of its cultural tradition, China stresses peace, harmony and reconciliation, and
not imposing on others what you yourself do not desire. It advocates that “the
whole world is one community”; its philosophy is that of a “combination of
man and Heaven”. Over most of the last one and a half centuries, an
impoverished and backward China had been invaded, oppressed and bullied by the
world powers. The Chinese people spent a hundred years in bloodshed struggling
to get rid of the yoke of foreign powers. Wars inflicted extraordinary disasters
on the Chinese nation. From personal experience the Chinese people keenly
understand the importance and value of peace and stability more than others. The
Chinese people love peace, hate aggressive war, and treasure their hard-won
independence. China will never subject other nations to the humiliation it once
suffered.
China’s foreign policy and strategic guideline are
subject also to its social nature. After the founding of the new China in 1949,
China chose socialism as its political system. In essence, socialism stands for
peace: maintenance of world peace and opposition to aggressive war are written
in its constitution. These guarantee in terms of its system and law that China
will never carry out an external invasion or expansion. Although the world is
not very peaceful, the themes of peace and development are the irresistible
historical trend. To strive for peace for a long period of time is its own need
and also is in conformity with the needs of the people of the world. The
instability of the world today stems mainly from hegemony and power politics.
“To work for peace one must oppose hegemony and power politics”. “The aim
of our foreign policy is world peace. Always bearing that aim in mind, we
wholeheartedly devote ourselves to the modernization programme to develop our
country and to build socialism with Chinese characteristics.”14
“Keeping to socialism is of vital importance for China”. If China “took
the capitalist road, it would be a disaster for the world. It would be a
retrogression of history, a retrogression of many years”. If China
“abandoned the policy of peace and opposition to hegemonism or if, as the
economy developed, it sought hegemony, that also would be a disaster for the
world, a retrogression of history”.15
One of the outstanding issues of the contemporary
international relations is that the U.S.-led Western nations often interfere in
other nations’ internal affairs on the pretext of human rights, and forcefully
advance Western democracy. This runs counter to Chinese foreign policy and
strategy. Hence, contradictions and struggles are unavoidable and chronic. Deng
Xiaoping stated in 1990 that “the key principle governing the new
international order should be noninterference in other countries’ internal
affairs and social systems. It won’t work to require all the countries in the
world to copy the patterns set by the United States, Britain and France”. Were
the Western developed countries to insist on interfering in other countries’
internal affairs and social systems, “it would lead to international
turmoil”.16The world today is still seeing the reshuffling of
international forces and a profound adjustment of international relations.
China’s foreign policy and strategy will continue to advance the
multi-polarization of the world in fighting hegemony and power politics. The
Chinese nation in its historical development of thousands of years has created a
splendid culture, contributing to the progress of the human civilization. Today,
the Chinese nation is endeavoring to build China into a modern socialist
country, with great cultural and ethical progress in conjunction with material
advancement, which will make a yet greater contribution to the cause of human
progress.
NOTES:
1. Gan Chunsong: Modernization
and Cultural Choice, Jiang Xi People’s Publishing House, 1998, p. 2-4.
2. Samuel Huntington, “Clash of Civilization?” Foreign
Affairs, summer 1993.
3. The first four models in this article are summed
up on the basis of relevant materials in “Culture and International
Relations”, Washington Quarterly,
1996. The fifth is the author’s own view.
4. Zhang Hongyi, ed., United States Human Rights and Human Rights Diplomacy (People’s
Publishing House, 1993), p. 282.
5. Selected
Works of Deng Xiaoping (Foreign Languages Press), Volume III, pp. 334, 336,
346, 347.
6. Samuel Huntington, “Clash of Civilization?”
7. Selected
Works of Deng Xiaoping, Volume III, pp. 334, 336, 346, 347.
8. Liang Yuntong, et al, The U.S. Strategy of Peaceful Evolution (Jilin People’s Publishing
House, 1997), p. 174.
9. Lu Liandi, et al, Track of Sino-U.S. Relations (Current Affairs Publishing House,
1995), p. 353.
10. Samuel Huntington, “Clash of Civilization
11. Speech by Jiang Zemin as he met with the EU Envoy
and Finnish President Ahdisari, Xinhua
Daily Cable, June 9, 1999.
12. Study
Program on Deng Xiaoping’s Foreign Thought (World Knowledge Publishing
House, 2000), pp. 101, 116.
13. Ibid.
14. Selected
Works of Deng Xiaoping (Foreign Languages Press), Volume III, pp. 66, 161,
346, 347.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.