博大龍：別再誤讀中國的民族主義，地球的明天就靠它了

具有中國特色的政府行為和政治組織，作為一種穩定、有序且可持續的增長模式，逐漸在國際上獲得信譽。雖然美國政策制定者與知識分子（以及青少年）尚未做好承認的準備，但他們已經開始意識到，控制個人不理智和充滿短見的貪慾，是未來集體政治行為和全球倫理的根本, 對中國是如此， 對整個世界也是如此。無論如何稱呼中國的新型意識形態，集體主義，社會主義，或是帶有市場特色的社會主義，有一點是肯定的：單憑自由市場這隻“看不見的手”，是無法使人類實現一切抱負的。這種市場萬能理論我想已經失效了。

在西方，特別是美國，老一代的人拘泥於舊觀念，認為個人能夠而且應該免於承擔集體義務，生存下去。鑑於西方人長年累月耳濡目染受到的影響，他們這樣想無可厚非。但今天的美國年輕一代，他們生活在網絡和資本市場充斥着暴力的時代，又如何看待這個問題？真相可能會讓你感到詫異。

30歲以下美國人更贊同社會主義而非資本主義（藍柱為社會主義，紅柱為資本主義），來源：YouGov調查網

在過去15年裏，我不僅生活在中國大陸，而且親歷了這個國家成長以及改革所經歷的陣痛，我在這裏學到的最簡單、也最深刻的一課是：集體主義精神，集體目標和集體努力，對未來人類繁衍生存不可或缺。鑑於當前的社會環境，它們的重要性不亞於、甚至已經超過歐洲啓蒙哲學強調的個人自由與能動性。在西方社會建構過程中，備受推崇的主流思想是以個人替代集體對話、集體正義和集體進步。從當前的美國總統競選就能看出，雙方極盡妖魔化彼此之能事，但很少拿得出改善美國民生狀況的實質性政策。

在某種意義上，個人慾望和想法凌駕於集體之上的古典自由主義理論，助長了企業資本主義，而後者的巨幅擴張，反而開始扼殺自由主義思想。如今，大公司掌握着經濟權力，成為公共服務的供應商（Facebook、Google等），但卻擺脱了國家政府的約束和管控。隨着公司越來越無國籍，越來越向雲端發展，運營越來越跨境化，我們虛擬環境的污染問題也越來越突出，因此監管的必要性也越來越顯而易見。人們越來越清楚地意識到，科技不但能創造新的奇蹟，也會帶來新的危險。當科技開始普遍侵犯人們的隱私，當科技開始傳播不和諧的、片面的、缺乏根據的故事，我們意識到市場、社交網絡、大眾出版是全球互聯互通的，在這些領域裏人們的行為不再限於個體空間，而能夠影響全世界。比這些媒體技術和出版公司更危險的，只有跨國工業巨頭們可憎的污染行徑了。

因此，我們的繁榮、安全、道德和人權，都有賴於集體達成的諒解、守則、目標和行動。這些更高尚的目的，超越了平庸的利潤追求，或者科技帶給我們的麻木、浮華的享樂。

古典自由主義理論認為，不受約束的、以市場為基礎的資源配置是人的自然狀態，然而正是在這種思想的指導下，科技和跨國公司破壞了普通人的環境、隱私、個人，世代以及經濟安全。顯然，這是一種過時的理論。世界各地的青年民意調查表明，人們都在呼喚新的集體精神、集體方向和集體靈感，不光為自己，也是為彼此、為大家。我堅信，在人民的推動下，社羣、國家、國際社會完全可以在保持固有身份的同時，朝着高尚的共同目標邁進。為了跨越經濟障礙，克服資源匱乏，解決衝突，以及應對迫在眉睫的挑戰和機遇，人類必須結合為一個整體，形成更和諧的嶄新基礎。

中美兩國批准《巴黎協定》，是朝正確方向邁出的一步。我支持此類由集體理智產生的行為，因為它們是實質性的、公有的、超國家的、可執行的。《巴黎協定》的意義，遠非古典自由主義短暫的經濟單位所帶來的（空洞的）快樂能夠度量的，它不但能治療地球的創傷，更可以迫使油氣利益集團減少對化石燃料的依賴，終止沒完沒了的能源戰爭（從中東到委內瑞拉）。此類協定證明人類開始意識到，每個人的行動都將給其他人的生活造成實際的影響，人與人之間存在依存關係，只有當每個人都做好自己份內的事，所有人才能過上共同憧憬的生活—這才是一個有機的集體，就像馬丁·路德·金説的， 這才是現實的本質，而非一場純粹基於資本收益的道德競次。我希望諸如《巴黎協定》之類的協議能傳遞一種信號：是時候與過時的經濟和社會形態説再見了，過去那種把增長（資本積累）置於正義、環境和物種生存之上的模式應該終結了。目前最重要的，是清楚地意識到人與人之間與日俱增的連通性。

很多人不會同意我的觀點，但我相信歷史將證明，集體主義的互通性擁有我所信仰的超越個人主義奇想和機會主義貪婪的重要地位。不管發生什麼事，中國都一直致力於實現社會集體主義理想，並視其為人類秩序、正義、發展的頂點。雖然我不一定支持中國所有的政策、所有的行動，但我致力於推動東西方文化之間坦率的對話理解，為中國在國際上勾勒一幅更清晰的圖景，向世界展示中國的發展目標和悠久歷史，並儘可能消除美國和西方對中國的一些誤會，便於制定更合理的對華政策。在未來的幾十年中，中美如果爆發武裝衝突，或任憑恐怖主義肆虐，或刻意無視氣候變化對人類生存造成的威脅，都可能毀滅世界。當然，它們如果能合作攻克這些難題，也必將拯救世界。

在世界歷史上，從沒出現過中美這樣強大的國家彼此交會；也從未有過兩個如此命運與共的國家，人民卻如此互不瞭解、互不信任。雖然中美雙方都懷着難以根除的疑慮， 美國人的弊端是他們狹隘的世界觀，以及四年一度、無休止的政治大秀——總統選舉。在美國政治裏，妖魔化對手已經成為遊戲的規則，政客的目的是撈選票，而不是考慮如何讓政策落地實施。民主制度有許多優點，但靠相互辱罵、誹謗中傷、人身攻擊來譁眾取寵，一定是民主制度最致命的弱點。

中美兩國必須搭建起一座互信、互知、互通的橋樑，雙方在溝通時既要開誠佈公的同時，也須注意方式方法，因為我們是全球大家庭中最年長的成員。無論道德智慧是否已經做好準備，不可否認，我們是同呼吸、共命運的一家人。科學研究清楚地顯示，唯一適合人類居住的星球——地球——已被一場源於歐洲的“工業革命”嚴重破壞。現在與其討論環境問題是誰的錯，不如共同面對人類生存的嚴重威脅。中國人、美國人以及全世界人民，如今有一種共同的（或者説“集體的”）責任，那就是幫助地球“滅火”，防止人類走向自我毀滅。我們只有10-15年的時間（採取極端措施來刺激可再生經濟和綠色經濟的增長，減少臭氧層空洞，以及遏止工業時代180年來的碳排放）。例如，必須限制碳排放，控制全球温度較前工業時代水平不超過1.5攝氏度，否則全球變暖將造成不可逆轉的後果。當前温度較前工業時代上升了3~5攝氏度，可以預期海平面將上升10米左右，每年都將產生巨型風暴，西伯利亞永凍層融化，暴露生物屍體，傳播炭疽病。此外還將出現大規模旱災、水資源匱竭（尤其是中東和中亞地區），糧食嚴重歉收。到2050年， 一個乾旱缺水的地球，是無法養活全球100億人口的。任由這些趨勢繼續，人類必將陷入衝突和災禍。1.5攝氏度，這是一場關乎子孫後代的鬥爭。人類必須停止各自為政，而要作為一個集體投入鬥爭，才能取得勝利。

如不控制温室氣體排放，21世紀氣温將上升4.5攝氏度，來源：climatescoreboard.org

我們沒有時間耗在任何戰爭上，無論是經濟戰爭、網絡戰爭，還是其他戰爭。此時此刻，人類處於歷史上前所未見的關頭，每個人都肩負着拯救地球的集體責任，以應對關乎全人類存亡的真正威脅。

中國是現代史上頭一個歐美之外的超級大國。中國規劃、控制和資助幾乎所有本土大型公司（包括國企和私企），而且操控貨幣，因此飽受歐美經濟理論學家詬病。但中國認為，其經濟政策是監管調節國際市場力量的方式。親兄弟可以意見不同，但一旦家中失火，大家必須齊心協力拯救這個家。

經濟挑戰當前，中美卻進入了一段相愛相殺的關係。中國成為美國最大的貿易伙伴，以極低的價格向我們提供了幾乎所有商品，使美國消費者對低價商品習以為常。為了人類的集體利益，中國提出了一條迥異於美國的新路：彙集有限的全球資源、社會正義和政府管控，集體意識以及為了更大的利益而犧牲自己，更好地利用地球資源。對美國來説，中國是知識產權的黑洞，是有時難以打入的市場，是最大的離岸外包“製造廠”，以及最大的債權國。中國有着多層意義重大的身份，可是我們的總統候選人卻只顧在競選宣傳中彼此詆譭和咒罵，對中美關係的重要性和隨之而來的機遇缺乏認識。如果沒有行動，沒有信息靈通、教育程度良好、甘願奉獻的民眾，沒有人在重大議題上進行理性討論。那麼民主便只是一個詞語，而詞語的解讀權並不為任何國家所專有，民主這個詞本身不是一種行動，它不能造福社會。我們必須銘記在心。語義的蓬勃發展從某些方面來説等於優秀的政府， 經濟正義、、穩定、教育和和平、科學和文化的集體進步是唯一的方法，我相信政府的表現是可以客觀地衡量的。

雖然中美兩國的政策方針有很大的不同，無論我們喜歡還是厭惡彼此，事實就是中美兩國人民已經緊密相連。我們一定要隨時記住，地球就這麼小，身處其中的中國和美國無疑是親兄弟，是休慼相關的一家人。我們可以各自發展道德觀，但命運已把我們連在一起，這個趨勢是不可改變的。偉大的美國前總統亞伯拉罕·林肯的箴言還縈繞在耳邊：“我們不能成為陌生人或者敵人，我們要成為朋友。”

中美夥伴關係才剛起步，是21世紀的特殊關係。它打破窠臼，衝破舊世界的限制。我們再也不能忽視彼此，我們之間的線已牢牢拴緊無法解開，就像連體嬰一樣，從頭到尾都連在了一起。我們之間會發生摩擦和口角嗎？當然，但是誰會失心瘋，對命運與共的兄弟起歹意呢？頭腦清醒的人都會回答説“沒人會”。真正理智、可行的方案，是中美全方位合作。兄弟之間存在健康的競爭關係，其初期表現可能是兄弟倆比誰個子高、誰更漂亮或者強壯，但是他們不會永遠都在這些事上較真。當他們逐漸長大，會意識到最重要的責任是一起照顧好父母——地球為母，時代為父。良好的兄弟關係必須建立在雙方對愛、全面合作和長期承諾的共同認識之上，這絕不是外交上的陳詞濫調，而是人類作為感情生物，對地球上諸多問題的唯一解決方式，也是我們必須深思併為之努力的答案。這一點至關重要。

在美國未被傳頌的故事和歷史

在21世紀，美國和中國會因爭奪勢力範圍，在繁雜的小矛盾中爭論不休；還是攜手並肩，共同維護地球的生態呢？這個雙向選擇簡單直白，但是我們必須超越短期經貿盈虧、就業崗位流失、非理性遏制和貨幣操縱；必須超越集體vs.個人權利自由的表述；摒棄關於零和博弈的錯誤敍事。我們必須快速做出團結合作的選擇，因為地球危機不等人，人類需要分秒必爭 。

我在中國拍攝電視節目和開展商業活動已經有十五年了，親歷了中國的蜕變。中國話語從温和的“和平崛起”，到更強勢的表述。這種語氣變化，跟美國1823年宣佈門羅主義並無太大不同。美國這個曾經殖民過菲律賓的國家，在面對中國崛起時，竟自封“亞洲監察員”，一邊秀軍事肌肉，一邊佔據道德制高點，對中國自然而然的崛起指手畫腳。

美國門羅主義的目標本來是通過劃分勢力範圍，保護南北美洲免受重商而好戰的歐洲勢力侵擾。結合當時的時代背景來看，即美國通過獨立戰爭把英國殖民者趕回大西洋彼岸，門羅主義是有道理的。但是放在今天，美國自己的勢力範圍超過夏威夷羣島，一直延伸到關島和塞班島，卻跑去規定另一個崛起大國（也是世界人口最多的國家）不得與其鄰國提出類似的雙邊對話，不免顯得有些虛偽。更何況，中國和鄰國的對話，並沒有什麼逾矩的地方。回顧美國種種“助紂為虐”的歷史，從在上海劃分租界，到韓國的李承晚政權，再到菲律賓的馬科斯政權，應該時刻警戒我們不要再犯相同的錯誤，別再想着要美國去指揮亞洲如何正確地開展地區內對話。

西方很多人為中國新展現出的強硬態度感到惋惜，但他們不應覺得太意外。自2012年來，隨着中國綜合國力的提升，中國人的民族自豪感和民族主義情緒越來越強烈，在最近的南海仲裁案後達到高點 。中國為了讓世界聽到她的訴求以及被平等地對待，共產黨需要動員和利用一切媒體/網絡/輿論、經濟、軍事力量，來“爭取信息時代傳統戰場以外的地區衝突的勝利”。為什麼要聚焦於綜合國力？在中國的“屈辱百年”（關於這段歷史西方學生知之甚少）中，她飽受外國列強鐵蹄蹂躪，被大英帝國的鴉片毒害，終於掙脱了桎梏。中國人堅信，在歷史性的科技和環境挑戰面前，如果保持團結，捍衞中華文明的權利，便能守衞住自己的歷史地位——也就是英國漢學家李約瑟所説的，中國過去兩千年靠貿易（而非征服），取得的卓越經濟文化成就。

開戰的理由？

中國崛起意味着中美之間必有一戰嗎？我不這麼認為。除非西方（及其盟國）與中國嚴重誤判對方，或因情緒過激導致對話退化，否則中美之間不會發生高強度衝突。對中共而言，介入武裝衝突的前提必須是為了捍衞領土完整；或者是為了維護執政黨的地位和秩序。

雖然許多人可能有不同意見，但中國這個人口最多的國家要快速和平地發展，不用擔憂外國勢力干涉或入侵，就必須擁有強大而統一的中央政府。看看18世紀以後的中國歷史，你會發現中國人的這種觀念不是憑空出現的理論，而是在一次次汲取經驗教訓之後總結出來的。當中央政府軟弱無能時，山河破碎、生靈塗炭、文化瑰寶被洗劫。中國人以史為鑑，自然將中央政府（中國共產黨）的統治視為國家領土完整的保證。從理性角度來看，這種看法無可指摘。

值得注意的是，中國在國際上打交道時，經常被指責在全球衝突中作壁上觀。雖然中國越來越多地參加維和行動，但中國一直遵守不干涉別國內政的原則，在非洲、東盟和歐洲均是如此。雖然這條原則不無值得商榷的地方，但是我們很難想象一個遭受過被殖民苦難的大國，面對西方在亞非拉等地留下的所謂“更優越”的舊範式，能夠立即推出更加穩定、更公平的政策。中國對內重視發展，對外表現得謙謹剋制（除了在南海問題上——但即使如此也比殖民時代的西方列強温和得多），這種做法應該得到國際社會的高度肯定。中國不打算把自身的道德標準、價值觀或經濟制度強加於人，僅這一點，對文藝復興之後的世界事務來説，便是革命性的。

與此同時，中國以身作則，領導世界經濟從化石燃料向綠色可再生能源轉型。這樣一來，中國的傳統經濟支柱——靠化石燃料推動的出口製造業——便面臨風險。從長遠來看，中國在環保戰略上邁出重要一步，應該得到肯定。這種巨大的轉型，意味着中國領導層決定犧牲部分短期增長，換取全世界的長期繁榮。

政策風向為何突然轉變？為什麼是現在？

在領土爭端和外國投資問題上，西方必須重新審視中國看似誇張的民族主義立場。就像哥白尼的“日心説”和孔子的儒家學説剛問世時，都飽受質疑和評判，我們需要一種全新又大膽的眼界來看待中國越來越高漲的民族主義。中國成為世界第二大經濟體（很快將成為第一大經濟體）的事實，以及由此而來的民族自豪感，以及政府引導，足以解釋民族主義情緒的上升。今天我們看到的中國，不是個主動製造爭端的國家，而是個為了經濟、文化、生活方式，為了讓“綠色革命”爭取到羣眾基礎，為了地球的生存而勇敢轉型的國家。面對如此巨大的挑戰，她自然要展示實力、激勵國家意志。

中國正在積極採取措施，努力實現可持續發展，擺脱新自由主義的約束，推翻跨國企業來的苛刻條款，建立監管制度約束企業股東利益不損害環境和人類長遠利益。向可持續發展快速轉型註定需要部分人做出犧牲，中國已經開始為公眾做這方面的心裏鋪墊。

中國可以説“不”

中國是一個堅持不結盟政策的國家，她敢於對西方國家説“不”，並且在過去三百年裏形成了一套獨特的經濟和社會文化範式。對所有人來説，中國代表着一個前所未有的新現象。中國為什麼這樣做？我認為有兩大原因：其一，中國開始向外部強加於她的條款説“不”，因為中國另有一套維護內部穩定和開展國際合作的方法，並且也能夠在國際上表述這套方法。中國不依賴固定的盟友，更注重不斷變化的雙邊文化、經濟和環境交流狀況。其次，中國認為只要維持內部團結，從碳排放大國轉為綠色科技先鋒，她定能再次完成令世界震撼的轉型。必要的轉型將無可避免地給執政黨和人民造成壓力，但中國意識到，轉型的長期回報值得當前的付出，因此她在變革道路上作出表率。

與自由主義民主國家4到6年的選舉週期不同，中國以一種長遠眼光看待自身國家和歷史地位。數千年來，中國看待自身角色的方法在不斷演化。領土爭端只不過是個表象，共同利用資源的問題終究會通過雙邊談判得到解決。鄰國們擔心中國很明白，中國也同樣希望解決這些問題，振奮國民精神。民族主義話語能為國家注入更大的“方向感”，凝聚民族精神。雖然短期內不免招來鄰國的怨恨，甚至可能產生低強度衝突，但中國在領土問題上站穩腳跟，是為了讓社會團結一致，更持久地發力，解決更尖鋭的轉型問題。中國選擇了一條智慧而正確的道路，在民族復興和以身作則的基礎上，無私地迎接中國及全世界的理想及擔負拯救環境的責任。

2009年，中國對清潔能源投資346億美元，據世界首位，來源：皮尤慈善信託組織

中國話語轉變調門是必然的，西方卻沒能理解其背後的原因。

我們必須貼近中國人民、聆聽中國的故事，認識中國的未來，站在他們歷史與未來的交匯處，重新發現人類過往至今的集體精神。如果這個深入靈魂的精神得到不同年齡層次的認同與接受，無疑中國將在環保戰略中發揮決定性作用，拯救地球並讓其重煥生命光彩。

（翻頁閲讀英文原文）

China Seeks to Create a Sustainable Environment through Galvanising Nation

Slowly but surely, China’s brand of governmental action and political organisation is gaining increased international credence as a model for stable and sustainable growth.  Many surmise (though they may not yet be ready to admit it) that American policy-makers and intellectuals (and certainly American youth) are beginning to realise that finding ways to temper the irrational and shortsighted greed of the individual is the very soul of future collective political action and global ethics. For China and for the World. By whatever name we choose to call it: collectivism, socialism, socialism with market characteristics. The notion that the invisible hand of free markets alone will hold our species’ aspirations in good stead, is a theory that may have outlived its usefulness.

In the West, and particularly in the United States, older cohorts maintain their adherence to notions that the individual can and should subsist without obligation to the collective. This is to be expected given lifelong indoctrination. But what of today’s American youth? Those who have experienced the invective-filled nature of the Internet and our capricious capital markets? How do they feel? The results may surprise you.

The most critical lesson I have learned in the past 15 years living and participating to a degree in Chinese mainland’s growth and growing pains in this. Collective spirit is key. Identifying and achieving collectively indicated goals, inspire noble effort. And thus identity and action as a collective are just as and perhaps more indispensable to posterity (given society’s current circumstance) than the European enlightenment’s focus on individual “freedom” and agency in lieu of collective effort, dialogue, justice, and advance; this highly individualistic liberal theory is a school of thought that survives as the dominant social construct in the West, and globally, to this day. One may note America’s current presidential race as clear exemplar. Filled with promises to individual and demonisation of others aplenty, but very little in the way of substantive policy discussions about how to better than environment and real American lives.

Ironically, Classical Liberal theory is dying by virtue of the very gargantuan multinational corporations it and its economic cousin “capitalism” first inspired.  Today we have global corporations with the economic power and status of genuine planetary public utilities (Facebook, Google, and others). Yet these entities are stateless and largely unregulated.  As the need to control these stateless, cloud-based, multinational behemoths that abet the pollution our virtual environment becomes clear, so does the need to regulate the stateless behemoths, the multi-national corporations that pollute our real environment.

Technology mixed with unlimited capital, but unregulated carry with time a potential for great wonder, but if unregulated great danger.  The danger is the wholesale erosion of privacy, and the wanton proliferation of divisive, unwholesome and unsubstantiated myth (often called “astroturfing”) in an attempt to sew confusion, discord or both. With these dangers we realize that our actions in markets, social networks, and mass publishing in which we habitually engage are not confined, rather their effects are universal because they are universally accessible to others and comprehensively surveilled by the stateless Facebook’s and Google’s who watch and record our every page view, communication and transaction.

These multi-national technology and publishing utilities  danger is superseded only by the danger posed by multi-national industrial and manufacturing juggernauts whose pollutive effect is a 2 century-long abomination. It follows then that our prosperity, security, and human rights depend on collectively formed understandings, guidelines, goals and action, born of purpose rising beyond the banal corporate profit motive or the crass and glossy entertainment opiates these same corporations make available on device screens to numb a new generation of humans.

And thus Classical Liberal theory, which says unfettered market-based resource allocation is the natural state of man, has, by virtue of technology and the multi-national corporation, robbed the common man of his true environment. Stripped him of all privacy or his personal and economic security. While it has served to enrich a few, this is a theory clearly showing signs of obsolescence, in a world rapidly realizing that it has been conned.

As polls of youth demonstrate across the globe, I am not alone in a belief in renewed collective spirit, direction, and inspiration, for and towards each other, not merely for ourselves. I have come as many others must, to a deeply ingrained belief in the power of collective communities, nations and groups of nations to maintain their own identity, but act with common purpose in grappling with these large and powerful entities created through vast accumulation of land, capital, viewers, and their data. Mobilised by noble intent fomented by the People, people can reclaim their natural right as human beings, not slaves to a mechanistic system of capital accumulation and population control.  People joining with one another to form a new, more equitable and harmonious basis for humanity’s traverse of the economic, resource scarcity, and environmental challenges and opportunities sure to come.

I unabashedly support substantive, supranational, enforceable acts of collective sanity like the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. China and America’s ratification is a step in the right direction. Agreements like these transcend Classical Liberalism’s focus on transient economic units of measure of (empty) happiness and boldly look toward healing the planet and returning to mankind its natural sovereignty; weaning big gas and oil interests off of death-dealing fossil fuels and bringing a halt (from the Middle East to Venezuela) to the wars started ad nauseam to acquire and control them. Agreements like the Paris Accords are proof of humanity’s nascent recognition that every human action now tangibly affects the life outcomes of every other. The truth: that I cannot be all that I am to be unless and until you are all that you ought to be–  is the very definition of a collective organism.  As MLK Junior said, this interwovenness is the true nature of reality.  Not the fictive rat race toward the debased morality based purely on accrual of capital and power at the expense of a livable future.  I am hopeful this landmark agreement and many others like it signal an end to adherence on outdated economic and social modalities. Placing capital and free markets above justice, and human worth was not meant to take our civilization beyond it pubescence.  The future will look very different than the past.  The environment, and species survival. Sanity and consciousness. Realization of our heightened connectedness may yet rule the day!

Many will disagree with my thesis, but I am convinced history will exonerate my belief in the primacy of inter-connectedness over individual whim and opportunistic greed. China is obviously the nation who has remained committed to core ideals of social collectivism, come what may, as the apogee of human order, justice, and social development. While I cannot advocate for all their policies and certainly not their every action, my passion is to facilitate candid cultural understanding.  To help paint a clearer picture of China’s developmental goals, rich history, and where possible, to dispel some of the misperceptions that currently drive (and often misdirect) America and the West’s China policy. China and America will together in the coming decades, either destroy the world through armed conflict, the unchecked spread of terror, and willful ignorance of the existential threat posed to many by climate change. Or rather save the world by jointly eradicating these scourges permanently.

Never have two more powerful nations intersected at a single point in history. Yet, never have two so interconnected peoples, trusted or known less about each other. And while this epidemic of misunderstanding goes both ways, it is largely an American malady born of a parochial world-view and the incessant grandstanding necessitated by the prolonged quadrennial spectacle of American presidential elections. The time in American politics when demonization is the rule of the game; the goal being the collection of votes with very little thought of how pragmatic policies will be implemented once the winning candidate is actually elected. Democracy has many strengths, but vituperative public grandstanding, backbiting and name calling, in the American context, is almost certainly one of its most debilitating weaknesses.

We must bridge the gap in trust, knowledge and rational discourse. Truth speaking to other valid truth with candid but gentle tongues, because China and America are the largest siblings in a global family. We share a common destiny and single home whether our moral intelligence is ready to accept the fact or not. We are One. We know today with scientific certainty that our only habitable home’s protective layer has been scorched by a European-spawned “industrial revolution” yet another capital “growth” contagion that has gone global, and whose effects have proved ruinous. Assessing blame is not important, recognizing the emergency is.

The people of China and America along with all the peoples of the world have a joint (dare I say “collective”) responsibility to put the house fire out, and draw humanity back from the precipice of self-inflicted destruction. We have less than 10–15 years (assuming drastic measures to increase renewable and green-fueled economic growth while bringing ozone depleting and earth-warming carbon emissions of the 180-year industrial age to an abrupt end. Many scientists set that bar for curbing global carbon emissions use temperature as the litmus test.   Most agree that in order to stave off irreversible climate change, we must maintain no more than a 1.5 degree Celsius increase above pre-industrial temperature averages in any given year. At the current 3–5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial norms, we can expect a 10-meter rise in sea levels, which will utterly devastate many low lying communities, yearly super storms, anthrax epidemics caused by their release from animal carcasses long-frozen and buried beneath northern climes melting permafrost. Massive droughts, and drastic decreases in water supply especially in the Middle East and central Asia, as well as food supply can be expected. The planet if so affected by drought and water shortages will not be able to feed the 10 billion inhabitants of Earth estimated to be alive in 2050. Which all leads predictably to unbridled conflict and misery. This is a fight for our children and their children’s very existence. 1.5 degrees Celsius is the golden number, we as a collective community, not whimsical abstracted individuals, must together fight to reach.

We have no time for war, be it economic, cyber, conventional or otherwise.  This moment and concomitant collective responsibility to save our planet, are a unique moment in our species’ and planet’s history.  

China is the first superpower in the modern era not of European origin, and China- in a sharp rap to the heads of almost every European economic theorist- plans, controls and subsidizes almost all of its large indigenous corporations (public and private) as well as its currency (many say, China to stimulate growth, manipulates both).  China would argue her economic policies are a means of regulating and tempering the indelible exuberance of global market forces. Opinions will differ, but there is broad agreement that the siblings must use their differing strengths to save our shared home from the inferno.

And so as the fire blazes, in our sister China we are presented with a new type of sibling rivalry. She is at once our largest trading partner. She provides most of the goods, at low cost, the American consumer takes for granted today. She provides a sharp counter-proposal about how limited resources, social justice and governmental regulation and collectively mobilized will toward a larger good can make optimal use of human resource for the betterment of the collective family.  China is also our largest source of IP loss and her markets at times seem impenetrable. She remains the largest beneficiary of corporate manufacturing “offshoring”, and she is our largest foreign creditor. China represents all these opportunities and challenges, and no invective-laced tweet or soundbite from our presidential candidates can encompass either the gravity or the opportunity this intermingling represents.  We must speak in substance not soundbite.  Democracy is a mere semantic.  Semantic understandings are not owned by any one nation. The word democracy itself is not a social good, it is not an action, and it means absolutely nothing without an informed, educated, self-sacrificing public engaged in rational discourse about the matters that affect our species’ advance.  This we must remember for a thousand years.   Political rhetoric in self-proclaimed democracies does not in any way equate to sound government policy.  Rather measurable progress in economic justice, social stability, education, peaceful scientific and cultural advance are the primary ways I believe a government’s performance can be objectively measured.

And while their governmental policies and philosophies today broadly differ, the relationship between the US and China could not be more close-knit. This is true whether we like everything about each other or not. It is important to bear in mind, given the minuscule size of earth, that China and America ARE siblings, of one family. Tied inexorably by destiny. It can not be otherwise, and this we shall realize as our moral facilities continue to develop. One great American president Abraham Lincoln’s words echo, “We must not be aliens or enemies, we must be friends.”

The Sino/US partnership is a new, uniquely 21st Century relationship. It breaks the mold.  We are Siamese twins, joined at the heart, lung, and hip. Will there be squabbles? Yes, but which of us shall incite the insane and do indelible harm to our blood sibling on whom our own life depends? Sanity demands that the answer be- no one will. The only sane choice is comprehensive cooperation. Healthy sibling rivalry may begin with intense competition about who is taller, prettier, or stronger, but it must mature. Good siblings ultimately learn that their most fundamental responsibility is to take care of their parents- mother Earth and Father time. Good siblings grow in the collective realisation that love, cooperation, and an enduring willingness to find common ground is not just diplomatic platitude, it is an imperative as we, who were gifted this gorgeous blue planet pray for its and our continuance.  

This is a story and history that is not being told in America.

From my vantage point, it is The Story of our Age. Will the United States and China decide to engage in petty squabbles for spheres of influence in the 21st Century?  Or will they join together to sustain our tiny planet’s critical biosphere? The choice is stark, binary and will require a paradigmatic leap of love over the notional fiscal quarter, trade surplus/deficit, job offshoring, irrational containment or currency manipulation; all conversations that, along with false narratives about zero-sum (economic status and war) games, while perhaps inevitable are dilatory at precisely the moment in history where every cooperative second counts.

Having built TV programs and businesses in China for 15 years, I have of late born witness to China’s metamorphosis from the more gentle rhetoric of “Peaceful Rise” to the increasingly bombastic rhetoric, “Asia is our yard, and we do intend to be its primary player.” This change in tone, while the subject of much media speculation in the West is not at all different from America’s Monroe Doctrine of 1823. It defies logic that a nation (America) that used to count the Philippines as a colony finds it necessary to use military muscle and the role of self-anointed ombudsman to adjudicate China’s own complex and natural rise in its own Asian neighbourhood.

The goal of the American Monroe doctrine, as stated, was to enable peace through delineating spheres of influence and keep a mercantilistic and war-like Europe out of the Americas. This made sense after an American revolution to throw tyranny back across the Atlantic. So it is somewhat hypocritical for a nation whose Western boundaries to this day extend beyond the formerly sovereign Hawaiian Islands and all the way to Guam, Saipan and beyond to claim that a rising power and the world’s most populous nation should not undergo a similar dialogue, sans outside interference, with its neighbors. Indeed the dialogue seems natural.   Our own occasional crime-abetting history from Shanghai’s concessions to the Rhee regime in South Korea and the Marcos regime in the Philippines post-colonisation should chasten America’s desire to dictate how Asia pursues this conversation today.

More to the point, while many in the West find this new Chinese assertiveness lamentable, they should in no way have found it unexpected. The rise in national pride and nationalist tenor since 2012, rising to a crescendo post the recent Hague ruling came in tandem with China’s “surge” in what it terms “Comprehensive National Power” (CNP) to wit: the theory that China, in order to be heard and dealt with equably as a great power, will need to harness its full media/cyber/public opinion, economic, and military power, mobilized, managed and leveraged by the ruling Party to “wage and win regional conflicts under informatization conditions.” Conflicts that extend beyond the traditional battlefield. Why this focus on CNP? The Century of Humiliation (something Western schoolchildren learn far too little about) foreign concessions, genocide, the forced sale of opium to China’s citizenry by the British Empire, followed by China’s liberation from unprecedented foreign incursion and injustice, made the majority of Chinese people believe that if they remain united, and reclaim their cultural birthright now, especially as historic technological and environmental challenges loom on the horizon, then China will have earned her place renowned British Sinologist Joseph Needham theorized China has naturally enjoyed for most of the last 20 millennia: a place of trade (not conquest) based economic and cultural pre-eminence among its sister nations.

Casus Bellis

Does this mean war? To that I would say no, certainly not high intensity conflict. That is unless the West or its Asian alliance partners totally misperceive China’s intent or vice versa. For the Chinese CCP armed conflict has first always been about preservation of territorial integrity post Century of Humiliation and the sustenance of the Party as a guiding force of administration and order in a nation larger than any other history has yet countenanced.

While perspectives here also may differ, China has found that in the world’s most populous country, a strong, unified central government provides the optimal environ for rapid, peaceful development without the fear of foreign meddling and incursion. More than mere theory, it is a hard lesson learned time and time again: when China’s central government is weak, its borders and then Chinese mainland have been encroached upon, its resources, natural and human treasure, ignominiously drained. With that historical marker as their lodestar, it is quite easy to see why China’s territorial integrity and maintenance of Central Government (Party) rule are beyond reproach from a rational Chinese perspective.

It is noteworthy that China, often the subject of sharp criticism for sitting on the sidelines of global conflict, has extended its firm principle of non-interference/non-intervention in the domestic affairs and politics of the nations with which it engages.  I liken this policy of non-interference to Star Trek’s prime directive.  And though an imperfect policy, I find it the much better choice when compared to America’s determination to interpose itself and its values wherever and whenever it deems prudent. For all the misery it has caused of late, I think America itself knows that less interference and more circumspection is advisable.  

Though China peacekeeping missions are on the rise, China, still refrains from inserting itself into the domestic politics of the nations of Africa, ASEAN, NE Asia, Europe, and Latin America except in matters of bilateral trade and investment. The same surely cannot be said for European and American Corporate and Government entities whose 4 centuries of interventions and conquest are well documented. While the principle of non-interference in places like Darfur may give rise to critique, it is hard to imagine a more stable and even-handed policy by a great power in the wake of the misery colonialism and the supposed superiority of European paradigms over indigenous people’s has left the world in and the past horrors visited on China itself. China looks inward to guide internal policy and political development and looks outward with a restraint and humility that must be recognized as a new and laudable paradigm on the world stage. China is not looking to impose its morals, values or economic system on anyone. That sentence alone is revolutionary in the history of post-renaissance great power world affairs.

At the same time, China has become the world’s leader by putting its money where its mouth is.  China has begun to make the difficult but needed transition from fossil fuel-dependent to a renewable and green technology economy (see graph below).  In doing so has risked its traditional economic pillars of easy reliance on fossil fuels to power its domestic manufacture for export. This is an extremely laudable long-term environmental protection strategy. This dramatic shift, given China’s historical reliance on fossil powered manufacture for export, is a clarion call that China’s leadership is ready to trade some short-term growth and countenance millions of short-term layoffs for the sake of it’s and the entire planet’s long-term prosperity. Given its progressive arms development, China no longer fears land invasion from any quarter; it only fears fracturing and fissures from within, and this it is fair to say, China and the Party will stop at nothing to avoid.

So Why the Sudden Shift in China Policy, and Why Now?

A reassessment of China’s seemingly bombastic nationalist stance regarding territorial disputes and foreign investment must be engendered. Demonising new paradigms is as old as the welcome Copernicus and Confucius’ ideas first received, but a bold new context for viewing China’s advancing nationalist rhetoric is needed.   Over 40 years China has re-earned national pride of place as the world’s second (and soon to be first) largest economy.  That alone can partly explain  the uptick in national pride sentiment, a pride encouraged by the government. But viewed with a stronger microscope, the upswing in Chinese nationalism and economic protectionism today is not a China looking for conflict, rather it is a China preparing to exhibit strength and galvanise national will for the challenging economic, cultural and lifestyle transformation that is inevitable if China’s “green Revolution” is to find grassroots support and success, and the planet is to survive.

China is taking the measure of what it will take to achieve true environmental sustainability, sans neo-liberal legislative gridlock, and the diktat of multinational corporations.  Corporations who, if unregulated, are guaranteed to put shareholder interests ahead of sound environmental policy or the species’ posterity. China is mentally preparing its citizens to make sacrifices, if needed, for the collective, via a rapid transition toward green sustainable growth. Ergo the nationalism we view as a foreign threat, but is actually a domestic rallying cry for collective solidarity.  What one sees is often determined by what one believes.  The West believes China is looking to control others, so that is what it sees.  The facts viewed from within, belie the flaw in that western interpretation.

A Nation that is prepared when necessary to say “No”

A non-aligned nation saying “no” to the West and its 3 century-long dominant economic and sociocultural paradigms is a new phenomenon on the world stage. So why, we might ask has China seen fit to do so?  I think there are two primary reasons: First, China is saying no to certain conditions placed on it from the outside, because they have a different construct for internal stability and global cooperation in mind. They now feel sufficiently prepared to articulate it.  Their construct is less reliant on fixed alliances and relies more on dynamic, bilateral assessments of cultural, economic and environmental circumstance.  Secondly, China is prepared to say no because China knows that if she maintains domestic solidarity.  If she demonstrates that she can move from one of the two largest emitters of carbon to the most avid green tech catalyst, then she can again create a transformative event that will shock the world, just as her economic growth over the past three decades has taken the world by storm.  And while the transition China has planned will inevitably put great pressure on both the Party and the people to do the hard but necessary transformative work, the leadership’s calculus is that receiving some ire for so-called nationalist sentiment today, as the galvanise the collective, is well worth the long-term return; a world environmentally transformed and a China recognized for its willingness and ability to change and lead by example.

China views its place in history not in the 4 or 6 year units liberal democracy uses as the lens of progress. China views its evolving over the course of millennia. The territorial disputes are a shell game that will be resolved by shared utilisation of the resources via bilateral negotiations at some later date. China understands the nations surrounding it are worried and these issues. China does not view these disputes as hypercritical, but does view them as historically and nationally galvanizing. They will need to be addressed, but for today the nationalist rhetoric serves a greater purpose by imbuing the nation with greater “sense of purpose.” And while short-term rancor and even possible low-level conflict is a possibility, China, in taking the long view, believes that using these territorial claims as a foil to prepare its collective community for the radical environmental, culturally economically deep transition ahead, is the right move. They believe and I agree that this strategy will bear ultimate proof of China’s scientific ingenuity, altruism, example based leadership, and perhaps, national greatness.

China’s change in tone was inevitable, the West’s misread of it in the run-up to the G20 summit and Paris Agreement ratification was not.

We must learn to learn about China’s future, by living among its people, hearing the stories of their present, the hopes of their future and the echoes of generations past and their rediscovered collective ethos. If that deep, soulful, ethos is returned to by young and old alike, I have no doubt China will play a decisive role in saving and more vitally, renewing this planet and her inhabitants

（青年觀察者胡怡瑩譯，楊晗軼校）

本文系觀察者網獨家稿件，文章內容純屬作者個人觀點，不代表平台觀點，未經授權，不得轉載，否則將追究法律責任。關注觀察者網微信guanchacn，每日閲讀趣味文章。