A clash of civilisations played out at SCMP’s annual China Conference: the full debate

[Music] it's always a challenge to have a panel right before lunch but I think we have about 30 minutes to do this but this is a topic to talk about sort of explore the the potential commonality or maybe differences in values between Chinese and Western culture because we think that this is actually very important in understanding the context of today's us-china relations this is a subject that could take on you know for three days and three nights but we only have 30 minutes let me set the stage first and then I'll introduce our panelists so so there is a there is a potentially two narratives on one on the China side the other one from the Western world the China narrative is that the rise of China is has been you know there's been obviously a lot of economic success over the last thirty years but there is a sense that the Western countries led by the United States is now being threatened by the rise of China as an economic power that there's a strategy of containment trying to contain China from the Western perspective there is a sense of skepticism of what this rise means to the to the rest of the global economy whether China could really integrate into the global economy and then there's a lot of people point to a lot of sort of exhibition of so-called sharp power by the Chinese some of them they accuse of China of government driven sort of activities trying to influence political affairs in other countries so the so we are set in this stage and I couldn't find two more appropriate people and also distinguished people to talk about this topic actually - maybe debate a little bit it's always good to fight on an empty stomach as Gary just said and so I like to introduce Eric Lee who is he is a venture investor based in China but he is most well known for some of his views about the Chinese model of governance some of you might have seen his TED talk he's a frequent contributor to the Foreign Affairs magazine and he has a I think he offers a very unique perspective and professor Keith rich / native of Detroit we talked about the heartland of the United States and last night we're talking about the Detroit Pistons and the Brooklyn Nets and so Professor Richard Berg is currently director and head of the journalism school at the Hong Kong University he is a seasoned journalist who has been with Washington Post for the last 20 years and have been bureau chief in Paris Jakarta Manila and I believe Hong Kong as well you actually lived in China from 2009 to 2012 so you've been there you've been in came Observer of Chinese Affairs so with that I maybe I start with Professor Richard Berg what do you think about this containment strategy well you know that's I've heard that a lot especially being in Beijing it's it's usually on the pages of the Global Times or something where they're saying the u.s. is trying to contain China's rise that's kind of the mantra you hear and you know from my perspective nothing could be further from the truth because in fact it was the u.s. that actually promoted China's rise the u.s. promoted flooding china entered the WTO which happened 2001 2000 2001 so I don't ever think there was much of a containment strategy there was more in my view a strategy of let's let's help China open up become part of the global international system let's help China let's help let's facilitate China's rise because there was a view that once China was a part of the International global system coming from closed economy - an open economy basically they would become more like us you know let's let's and you know and opening their economy meant flooding the zone with you know McDonald's and KFC and all the other good things from the West and ultimately you know they would become more like us and they would have more openness and more freedom and ultimately lead to a more open political system as well that's the strategy if you want to call it that of you know you know bringing into your so-called adversary by embracing them so it was never in my view a containment strategy and I would say up until this day you know you hear this as well even when President Obama announced the pivot to Asia everybody talked about this as containment in China when in fact it's the exact opposite I don't think the US wants the blunt China's rise I think America knows that its own economic success depends on China's economic success so the goal is not to contain the rise as much as its to direct the rise in a certain direction so China becomes you know a friendlier more open country that's tied in to the exact same international institutions that you know by WTO etc etc so I think that's that's why I push back when I hear people saying that there was some any kind of a containment strategy ever but well it seems like things have turned out sort of in a direction that people didn't expect and you talk about sort of open political systems and I think what defines the Western liberal democracies are some of the values of individual liberties freedom an election based decision making process and question - Eric what is what is the model that China is moving on is there a alternative model of governance well thanks let me first quickly respond to what he said I mean I do agree with you that I think for a long time after the Cold War the United States did not pursue a containment strategy against China they wanted to bring China into the system as you said I think the u.s. strategy was us pursued a a make the rest of the world in its own image strata gee by persuasion of if possible by force if necessary that that's been the strategy post-cold-war for for 20-30 years but I would argue that it was essentially spelled out by Anthony Lake the National Security Adviser under Clinton to make the rest were in so image I would argue that if China had followed that prescription it were not actually being successful and to answer Joe's question I think yes China is pursuing a different has been pursuing a different political system a political model and will continue to do so precisely because it's being successful in pursuing something that's distinctly different from from the Washington Consensus what are the key components of that model and maybe some of the values that underlie let me first stress what we have in common great we can end on that and after the 18th Party Congress Xi Jingping took the the other six guys to the National Museum and he pronounced this thing called a Chinese dream which is essentially that Chinese Renaissance national Renaissance and I remember reading a lot of people including a lot of leading intellectuals who said that the Chinese dream is the opposite of the American dream the American Dream is about individual individualism individual aspirations freedom and the Chinese dream is spark the collective National Australians and and what have you but I would beg to differ from that in me as you remember we all say the 20th century was the American Century which is true and the inaugural president of the American Century was Teddy Roosevelt of course it became pres at the turn of the 19th 20th century and and I remember if you if you go google it you'll find his most important speech at that time called the strain years life if you read that speech you'll find it is so similar to Xi Jingping speech after the 18th Party Congress about Chinese dream and he talked by the American dream okay he talked about look what the Spanish are doing look at what the British are doing we gotta get our act together let's forget our individual interests let's forget our individual dreams let's all work for the great American collective to build American national strengths and give up on our own individual desires to sacrifice for the American the collected the American collective national national Renaissance not a renaissance but bursting to greatness so you it's amazing how similar these two speeches are and if you look at from Teddy Roosevelt through FDR through the interstate highways through the building the welfare labor union all of that so America had been the American Century for a large part America's rise had been about the collective about the nation as a whole until recent decades somehow it gone on a tangent about it's all about the individual I don't buy it and I think American greatness American Century was built on a collective dream not not not about the individual and in the individual is an illusion that came about in very recent decades after America is already risen Richburg what what do you say to that I took issue a little bit with the history there I think you look your presidents always call together the nation for the collective it was John Kennedy who said that's not what you can do you know that's what you can do for your country not what your country can do for you but they never did that or promoted that idea of a collective together at the sacrifice of individual liberties etc I found that interesting earlier when you were talking about what Anthony Lake said and you said China would not have been successful had they that model because you seem to be implying I don't to put words in your mouth that democracy or more individual liberty is would be it would have been incompatible with China advancing the way it has advanced and you know you know when I was here in the 1990s living in Hong Kong and traveling around Southeast Asia I heard a lot of this talk about Asian values that Asians are somehow different than the u.s. they don't they don't Westerners that that they prefer a paternalistic style of leadership they don't care about things like individual rights they only care about you know the country the family first and then the society the but you know we put too much emphasis on individual rights I've been hearing that Asian values thing from for four decades now mostly by prime ministers in Malaysia and Singapore well I use I hear this stuff it's usually to justify one parties continued hold on power by saying our people don't care about democracy they only care about paternalistic rule as long as it's benevolent and when you have the Mandate of Heaven you can rule you know I've always said that's bunk because you know I go back to the idea that yes there are some values that are universal and I think there in trying pretty nicely in the Declaration of Independence went you know and just if you look at those words you know you know you know we're endowed with certain inalienable rights including you know life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and it's not just that these are American values somehow I think somehow these are universal values that are applied everywhere Ho Chi Minh quoted those same you know universal values when he was declaring independence for Vietnam and if you look now you know and I'm not saying that everybody has to have a system that looks like the American system I'm not saying that at all so when I say democracy I'm talking small D can look differently in different places but it seems to be the trend that has swept the globe to me the most exciting thing over the last twenty years is how democracy has taken root in places like Latin America Central America I think Cuba is the only one now that's not somehow having elections in Africa where I covered you can't get away having coos anymore I mean even in Zimbabwe recently they had to say this is not really a coup now most countries are at least at least pretending to have some kind of democratic election to legitimize their rule even in you know in Asia look around the in Thailand they're pushing the head up for an election this year to justify in Cambodia even Hun Sen who's been in power thirty years has to go through the motions of having some kind of popular legitimacy so I don't buy the notion that somehow democracy and this idea of individual rights is just the Western concept that we're trying to push onto people including China well I mean I think it's more basic than values I mean I think it's about what works so let's take a look at last 30 years me I call it the great conversion since 1990 I think in the in the 80s according the Freedom House there were about 70 847 50 democracies today there are about 150 okay who had electronic democracy elections and what-have-you and according to The Wall Street Journal Heritage Foundation the number of countries that went from not free market to free market has quadrupled okay so never before in human history never has so many countries abandoned whatever political and economic system they had and adopted something completely new never before okay so I call it the great conversion and now thirty years have passed now let's take a look at the track record of the great conversion okay I grew from two three groups the first group was the luckiest one that's the former Soviet states in Eastern Europe okay those were the most Western especially Eastern Europe that got quickly integrated into Europe got access to big market okay there are about 29 countries in that group including Russia itself if you're examining the luckiest group okay with a few exceptions Czech Republic maybe Poland maybe Hungary who are now regretting the about two-thirds of those countries are in horrible shape the form for most of it the Ukraine being the worst okay not livable fail state ok ever look at the stance look most of the Eastern Europe not in good shape okay and that's the luckiest group the second group that converting to electoral democracy in market capitalism were places like Taiwan South Korea those are places that achieved developed world status dictatorships or authoritarian regimes so they got rich before they democratized right so they didn't rise under in a democracy they rose under dictatorial or authoritarian regimes and they achieved developed country status and then it democratized out of that group 50/50 at best okay South Korea continues to thrive but Taiwan has deteriorated in the last 20-30 years the economy medium incomes been dropping as completely stagnant okay politics is poison people are not happy so it's 50/50 and then you look at the largest group the devout so-called developing world from Southeast Asia to Africa to Latin America all those countries you mentioned none of them has been successful yeah you'll be hard for us to find one shining example of success and the biggest success of course is China we didn't do it okay so so I think it's it's it's you know it's more basic than values and coaches maybe I think Chinese people are very pragmatic and you know if so it's I would predict it's less likely that China would would follow the Washington Consensus pass because they can't find a good example I mean you know if you produce a good example maybe you will consider we're just getting started so alright well but okay so now we've established that Professor rich Berger is the idealist and Eric is the practical Asst but what about maybe you know you talk about universal values are there in the end State are there some values that are commonly held at a universal maybe at the idealistic state because today in China the GDP per capita in China is about eight thousand US dollars the United States is about 56 thousand US dollars so it's 1/7 up close to ten thousand okay all right whatever one sixth of the United States so China in that context is still developing even though a lot of people said it's already developed so maybe if you're the leadership of China maybe China is should be run more like a corporation as opposed to a political system because in a corporation when you're trying to improve grow revenues improve profits whatever it is you can really only have one CEO not co-ceos we're not an investment bank co-head of everything so maybe maybe at the correct maybe the practicality of this is that in the current state this model is more suitable in China but is there an end State Eric I I don't I mean I'm not sure I think in States are dangerous yeah tell you the truth I'm worried about America because it's because it really convinced if there's an end state to human development which is essential religious concept with us what the Soviet Union did that's why they collapsed they believe there is some kind of inevitable end to human society there is some kind of paradise on earth that that we might we must you're a he galleon essentially Marxism to the all societies must drive towards I mean I think that's a very dangerous concept I mean I think we should be practical and we should be tolerant of different trajectories and and be open to them well thank you for the concern I'm actually a little bit worried about China worried about each other you know because when you have a government US political system that's built its entire legitimacy on the idea that we're helping the economy grow and we're helping you get rich and so leave at least stay out of politics we're gonna suppress some of your individual freedoms and your right to read what you want and control the internet but we're letting you get rich that's their entire claim to legitimacy and so what happens when the economy starts to slow what happens if when they can't keep pumping up the economy 26.9 what happens when it slows to 2 or 3 or 4% that's what I've seen happen in other countries around when the economy slows if that's the only claim the legitimacy you have on the flip side of that and I would agree with you that a lot of people probably in China believe that this is a stable system that's allowed them to get rich and grow especially if they live on the coastal areas and you know I always would ask the question when I was in China to officials who didn't like me very much saying well yeah if you think that everybody thinks that this is the best system I have why don't you prove it just have an election you'll win you know just to have the Singapore model you know they go to the polls every four years and they get reelected because people think that's the base the best model to have so you know and I you know I would just have to push back a little bit on this idea that there are no examples of success anywhere in the West exchanges the only example of success I mean yes China we managed to grow at 10% a year for a long time but they were starting at a low base because of the because of the wars and then the Cultural Revolution and the travesty of Mao's era you know China China was way behind where it should have been so it was not actually miraculous that they were growing they were just catching up to where they should have been now the trick is going to come if they now that they're entering this higher income status if they can continue that kind of growth rate going I mean I wanted I didn't say I mean I think what I said was the new democracies they're being very few success stories and probably the close to none I was look at Latin America they're quite a few whoo-hoo Brazil Brazil well yeah look at preserving if you look I did an analysis the so-called BRICS country er I see yes right and the last 20 years I've changed the name I caught a sea rest China and the rest if you look at the other four countries in BRICS if you separate their numbers China is the only one that carried water okay China contributed 90% of the collective growth of the of bricks I mean every other country was either near average or below average and all four are electoral democracies only China was not what what metrics are you using though for success just GDP growth well living standards yes I mean I I'm what well let me tell you what measure I do use and it's not about getting rich it's not about getting rich we lifted 700 million people out of Egypt poverty in 40 years this is not a term getting rich could capture all right I mean if we look at poverty alleviation if we take out China's MA China's numbers the rest of the world had gone backwards in poverty alleviation so we lifted all of the people out of poverty in the last 30 40 years and this is not about getting rich it's about people living with basic dignity agree with that that's been its tremendous accomplishment of the dong Xiao ping but as I mentioned before a lot of that was just a corrective for where China should have been had it not been for the first 30 years that's not the case let me let me correct that so in 1949 when Mao took over China our average life expectancy was 41 years old okay I don't know about two of you you look young I had already lived past you're the youngest looking dude in this on the stage 41 years old okay and and and literacy rate 15 percent immunization rate zero by 1976 when Mao died average life expectancy was 68 all right literacy rate was 80 percents close to 100 percent of young people immunization rate 100% there is no way the thin shopping were being able to launch the reforms successfully without those enormous amazing accomplishments in fact if you look at the numbers by 1978 at a very low income per capita still poor country on that basis China was already within striking distance to developed countries in terms that you and Human Development Index okay amazing accomplishment in the first 30 years a lot of problems Cultural Revolution greatly for disasters catastrophes but to characterize somehow China I mean know China was where it should be in 1978 I would disagree with that I would think China should have been a lot further along than they were and then they done Xiao Peng reforms were a corrective to that but we'll disagree on that point okay but but there's just one measure I think just living in you know working in China and and and seeing how the economy has developed if you ask a young person in their 20s today whether they're better off than their parents whether they believe that their children will be better off in the future there's a lot of hope there's it's that on that positive trajectory if you go to the US and interview college graduates whether they're better off than their parents and whether they think their children aren't gonna be better off there is a little bit of a mixed response so by that measure I think things are a little bit different but I'm sorry we're a little bit out of time but what I maybe Eric you what do you want to cut let's not even compare with the u.s. let's compare with all the new democracies I mean if you go to Brazil go to Chile go to Taiwan the numbers are dismal I mean people were miserable if you look at the numbers I mean there's only one way to characterize it I mean well I'd like to leave it to Professor rich BIR to respond to respond to that first of all I would just take a little bit of issue saying that you know because I talked to I talked to mainland students all the time were my students when I lived in Beijing I had friends there I would not say that every one of them are saying oh my life is better than they'll say my life is better than my parents but they're not necessarily so much more hopeful about the future the things I heard were boy I can't afford a house anywhere near the sitter of the city I can't even afford an apartment they're college graduates who can't get jobs so I think they have some of the same fears and frustrations as young people everywhere about the future they don't think that they've benefited from the economic reforms as much in recent years the one common refrain I used to hear from people and I still hear it from my students here is yeah we have two trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserve the country is rich but the people are still poor and I've heard that over and over again so I would not necessarily equate this great economic growth and boy look on paper they're better than Brazil was saying while the people are so much better off and so much happier I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence I mean everybody could find anecdotal evidence to prove their case but but I only look at macro numbers I mean if you look at the survey data you look at the Pew Research numbers I mean there's no credible you can't find one credible public survey data to says the Chinese are not happy or not optimistic about the future I mean it's complete opposite that means this is the most optimistic people on earth if you believe if you believe public survey data out of China yeah I don't I don't know well maybe I don't but I don't know what else to believe I mean so you have to base your judgment on something you have to face your judgment I so before we're really out of time before we and just I just like to pose one question I think this is a very lively debate there's a lot of food for thought but are we closer than we we think I mean are there some commonalities in terms of values maybe just a one or two words what do you think that is what is the commonality Eric I think the West Westerners especially America need to worry about their own problems they they they need to move a little bit towards caring for the corrective and not worry too much about not focused so much on the individual I think you America has let its country stagnate because it cares too much about the individual at too much about liberty and less about the collective and and that's and the Chinese probably need to care a little bit more about the individual I would say oh okay I was just about to say his last point I think as China grows and develops and China Rises become a world power I think commensurate with that they have to start giving a little bit more openness to their own people they have to start letting people read a little bit more what they want they have to start letting people be able to do what they want move around the way they want I mean it's you know if somebody wants to go on the internet and check out some foreign website for something they have to allow more creativity they have to allow people to you know to experiment in fields they don't yeah why are you censoring movie scripts where are you censoring artistic expression they have to start if they're if there's a reason why you get so much innovation coming out of the US and why so many people go to Silicon Valley to invent things because there's a lot more openness to you know and in the education system and that's another big area that they need to look on so you know it's yes but maybe that maybe the US could use a little more collectivity but I think unless you allow more individual interpretation individual expression they're going to be stunting where China could be all right we're really out of time so thank you very much thank you thank you very much indeed again gentlemen mr. chai dr. Li and professor Richburg for a very entertaining panel session if they are looking forward changing TV in careers they could go on TV because I think I'd watch them all day long ladies and gentlemen it's now time for lunch you can go fetch your lunch outside and we'll see you at 2:15 so around 90 minutes from now thank you very much indeed everyone thank you [Music]

Channel: SCMP Archive

Views: 67,231

Rating: 4.7823372 out of 5

Keywords: SCMP, South China Morning Post China Conference

Id: e4grWwFxhe0

Length: 29min 50sec (1790 seconds)

Published: Mon Jul 06 2020