盧沙野：西方不能因為自身競爭力下降，就給別人使絆子

【本文為5月23日，中國駐加拿大大使盧沙野在多倫多《環球郵報》總部“中加關係研討會”上的演講。】

尊敬的克雷蒂安先生，

馬大維先生，

蒙特利爾銀行金融集團CEO懷特先生，

《環球郵報》發行人兼CEO克勞利先生，

女士們，先生們，

大家下午好！

我首先向克雷蒂安前總理表示誠摯敬意。您擔任總理期間，為推動中加關係發展作出積極貢獻，兩國關係經歷了“黃金十年”。中國人民歷來珍情重義，始終記得您這位老朋友。

由於眾所周知的原因，當前中加關係出現嚴重困難，處於兩國建交以來的最低點。我注意到加各界對此都高度關注，有不同的看法。《環球郵報》等媒體對此作了很多的報道和評論。其中不乏對中國的批評指責，也有一些理性思考。中加關係怎麼了？兩國關係為什麼會遇到當前的困難？今後的出路在哪裏？在此背景下，我覺得這次研討會非常及時，給我們提供了一個很好的交流平台。感謝《環球郵報》和蒙特利爾銀行的精心組織。

今天的研討會，最初的主題是“接觸的規則——重塑中加關係”。從源頭上看，“接觸”這個詞含義十分微妙，包含“建立明確關係，以承諾形成約束”的意思，是美國對華政策的外交術語。過去幾十年，美國為首的西方國家對華奉行“接觸+遏制”政策，就是要用軟硬兩手——“接觸”是軟的一手，“遏制”是硬的一手——來把中國引導、約束到西方設定的軌道上，政治上實行西方自由民主制度，經濟上遵循自由市場模式。

但最終中國沒朝着美西方設計的方向演變，而是沿着適合本國國情的中國特色社會主義道路大踏步前進。這令西方國家大為失望，也促其進行反思。但反思的結果是，相當一部分西方特別是美國戰略界人士認為，對華“接觸戰略”已經失敗。這相當程度導致了美國特朗普政府作出將中國視為戰略競爭對手的政策轉變。“接觸戰略”為什麼會失敗？這就涉及到一些重要的問題：

首先，西方應該如何看待中國？

説實話，西方向來視中國為“異類”，而不是一個與自己平等的正常國家。西方國家懷着“慈悲”的心理，居高臨下地俯視中國，要用“普世價值”把中國從“專制”、“獨裁”統治下拯救出來。所以才有“接觸戰略”，要通過“接觸戰略”來改變中國，使中國成為西方所希望的那樣。然而，中國是一個有着5000年曆史的東方文明古國，比現存所有西方國家的歷史都要長得多。使這樣一個國家變成西方國家是“不可能完成的任務”。

1840年鴉片戰爭後，中國曾經嘗試過很多辦法實現現代化，實業救國、君主立憲、共和民主，但都沒有成功。國家依然積貧積弱，外有列強欺壓，內有軍閥混戰，百姓民不聊生。1919年巴黎和會上，作為戰勝國的中國卻不能收回被戰敗國德國佔領的土地，徹底打碎了中國人民對西方民主國家的幻想，爆發了著名的“五四運動”。這場運動將馬克思主義引入到中國，也催生了中國共產黨。中國共產黨立足中國社會現實，回應人民訴求，經過28年艱苦卓絕的奮鬥，推翻了壓在中國人民頭上的帝國主義、封建主義、官僚資本主義“三座大山”，建立了新中國，確立了社會主義制度，實現了中華民族由近代衰弱到扭轉命運、持續走向繁榮富強的偉大飛躍。因此，中國共產黨領導和社會主義道路是中國人民的選擇，是歷史的必然。

然而，西方國家就是因為共產黨領導和社會主義制度這兩條，就認定中國是“專制國家”，“沒有自由”，“侵犯人權”，哪怕中國用幾十年時間走完西方國家幾百年才走完的發展道路，實現了國家現代化，成為世界第二大經濟體；哪怕中國幾億人擺脱貧困，對全球減貧事業貢獻率達70%；哪怕中國每年有1.6億人次自由出國旅遊，而沒有滯留西方國家成為難民；哪怕世界5大主要宗教都在中國合法存在，中國信教民眾達2億人，宗教團體約5500個，宗教場所14.4萬處。世上哪有如此仁慈善良的專制國家呢？

今年3月，聯合國公佈《2019年全球幸福報告》，對全球各個國家的幸福指數進行了綜合分析並排名。雖然這份報告由聯合國發佈，但實際上是由西方知名的民意調查公司蓋洛普公司對140個國家和地區進行調查後，由一些專家彙編而成的。據此報告，2018年利比亞的排名是第70名，中國排名為第86名。今年利比亞的排名是第72位，中國則下降了10名，名列第96名。這一排名很有諷刺意味。在西方專家看來，目前中國人民的幸福指數甚至還遠不如正處於戰亂狀態、恐怖襲擊肆虐的利比亞。這一定是哪兒出錯了。

近來，西方媒體及政客十分熱衷炒作、抹黑中國在新疆依法設置的職業技能教育培訓中心。中國設置教培中心的目的就是去極端化，嚴防暴力恐怖主義思想的傳播，某些西方國家也有類似做法。但這一預防性反恐和去極端化創新舉措卻被某些西方人士歪曲成了打壓少數民族權益和宗教信仰自由的手段。他們只關注幾個觸犯了中國法律的“人權衞士”的人權，而對受暴恐事件殘害的民眾的人權視而不見，對中國13億多人民、新疆2400萬人民的人權視而不見。

事實上，在教培中心設置前的十多年裏，新疆曾發生過數千起暴恐事件，導致成千上萬的無辜民眾死傷。暴恐分子手段血腥、令人髮指，同近期新西蘭、斯里蘭卡發生的事件，同一年前多倫多發生的事件相比有過之而無不及。中方設置教培中心以幫助被暴恐極端思想“洗腦”的人員擺脱極端思想束縛，掌握生產和生活本領，取得了立竿見影的效果。新疆社會治安環境有了明顯改善，最近兩年多來未發生一起暴恐事件，也沒有無辜民眾再受殘害。試問，站在中國人民、新疆人民的立場上，這是好事還是壞事呢？

我舉以上兩個例子，就是想提醒西方某些人士，觀察中國不能只從西方的視角，而應更多從中國視角看；也不能持“非此即彼、非黑即白”的觀點，認為只要和西方不同的都是錯的和惡的，或是同樣的事中國人做就是錯的和惡的。這樣才能客觀、全面地認識中國，才能從根本上改變對中國的誤解和偏見。

其次，西方應該如何看待中國的發展？

目前，西方針對中國的發展主要有幾種論調：比如，“中國經濟威脅論”和“中國科技偷竊論”。

中國的發展是否構成威脅？我想告訴大家，中華民族骨子裏沒有對外侵略的基因，我們歷史上從沒有對外發動過侵略戰爭，也從未在海外佔領過殖民地。舉世聞名的歷史遺蹟——萬里長城就是例子，中國建造長城是為了防衞北方遊牧民族的入侵。明代（15世紀初）航海家鄭和七下西洋，帶去的是茶葉、絲綢和瓷器，而不是戰爭、屠殺和佔領。

再比如，南海諸島歷來是中國的固有領土，二戰後，當時的中國國民政府還是在美國軍艦的協助下，從日本侵略軍手裏收復這些島礁的。為了明確主權權益，國民政府於1947年劃定了九段線。上世紀70年代前沒有任何一個國家對南海九段線提出異議或對南海諸島提出主權聲索。但70年代後，隨着南海地區勘測出巨量的油氣資源，一些國家為了利益開始非法侵佔南沙羣島部分島礁，這是南海問題的根源。憑實力現在中國完全可以收回被佔島礁。但中國沒有這麼做，而是堅持與直接當事國通過對話談判解決爭議，這説明中國從來不曾也不會威脅別國。

中國的發展不僅不是威脅，對世界而言給恰是巨大的貢獻。幾十年來，中國經濟持續高速發展，成為世界經濟增長的引擎。中國對世界經濟增長貢獻率多年保持在30%，遠超歐美等發達國家。中國提出的“一帶一路”倡議為曾經封閉隔絕的亞歐大陸腹地，為曾經缺少經濟民生基礎設施的廣大發展中國家，為經濟增長乏力的歐洲國家，連通了世界市場，找到了脱貧道路，提供了增長動能。

中國經濟的發展，科技的進步絕不是天上掉餡餅，更不是靠偷，而是靠13億多中國人民的辛勤勞動和不懈奮鬥得來的。美國人關於中國強制技術轉讓、侵犯知識產權、國有企業不公平競爭的指控是建立在謊言和偏見基礎上的，他們故意忽視了他們對中國的背信棄義和商業霸凌。如果靠偷就能讓航母下水，靠不公平競爭就能讓大空探測器登陸月球背面，靠侵犯知識產權就能讓5G技術領先世界，那世界各國都可以成為像美國這樣的發達國家了。

西方國家對中國經濟和科技發展心理不平衡，是“西方中心主義”思維作祟，它們總認為自己優於其他民族。過去數百年，西方的確為人類文明進步做出了巨大貢獻。但在此之前，中國早就在世界文明史上佔有重要一席。西方不能狹隘地認為自己會永遠領先，而無視甚至通過不正當手段剝奪其他民族生存、發展的權利。

冷戰後，西方將“歷史終結論”奉為圭臬，傲慢地認為西方制度已登峯造極，是最好的制度，因此，發動了一場又一場針對“非西方”的戰爭，結果不但破壞了世界的和平與穩定，也消耗了自身的資源和精力。一些頭腦清醒、富有洞察力的政治家對此看得很清楚。

今年4月，美國前總統卡特在同特朗普總統通電話後向公眾表示，自1979年中美建交以來，中國從未對外進行戰爭，一直專注於國內發展，而美國卻總處於戰爭中。美國在其242年的歷史上，只有16年沒打仗。新加坡前外交官、學者馬凱碩在其新書《西方失敗了嗎？》（Has the West lost it？）中對西方提出“3M”的建議，即“極簡”（Minimalist），少打仗，少干預別國事務：“多邊”（Multilateral），虛心傾聽廣大“非西方”國家意見；“馬基雅維利”（Machiavellian）， 運用戰略智慧維護長遠利益。上述建議值得西方國家認真思考。

再次，西方應如何同中國打交道？

中國發展得怎麼樣，應該由中國人民自己來評判。我們對自己的道路、理論、制度、文化充滿自信。我們絕不會因為西方國家有些不同看法、西方記者寫幾篇抹黑文章就改變自己的發展道路。我們認準的道路，就會堅持走下去。現在的問題是如何同中國打交道？我提一個“3R”建議：

一是尊重（Respect）。不尊重中國文化和國情差異，是西方對華“接觸政策”失敗的根源。要想使“接觸”更加有效，西方國家必須在政治上切實做到尊重和平等對待中國。中西雙方要尊重彼此核心利益和重大關切，不干涉彼此內政。

舉個例子，2014年香港爆發“佔中”抗議活動，並持續了79天。社會混亂，百業受損，嚴重影響市民生活。最終香港特區政府依法採取了措施。但上述非法活動卻得到了英國等西方國家的支持、美化，他們對香港特區政府的處置方式指手畫腳。近日，英國倫敦一些環保人士也發起了“佔中”抗議活動，但持續不到8天就遭到當地政府鐵腕鎮壓。示威者被稱作烏合之眾、暴徒，上千人被拘捕，40多人遭起訴。前香港特區行政長官梁振英感嘆説，“英國警方沒有忍79天，連7.9天也沒有”。這多麼具有諷刺意味。

二是互惠（Reciprocity）。經貿上要本着互利共贏的精神開展合作，不能只想着單方受益。改革開放之初，中國給予外資企業超國民待遇。當中國企業要為使用土地繳納鉅額費用時，外資企業可以免繳。當中國企業要繳納沉重的營業税時，外資企業可以“兩免三減半”。隨着中國2001年加入世貿組織，為了同國際接軌，中國取消了外企的超國民待遇，給予其與中國企業同等的國民待遇，都要繳納税費。結果有些西方企業就開始抱怨中國投資環境變差、市場準入存在問題等。西方企業忘記了其享受超國民待遇時賺得盆滿缽滿，現在卻“倒打一耙”，説中方佔了便宜。這如同一場4×100米接力賽，西方不能將自身競爭力下降歸咎於對手，應更加努力地向前奔跑，而非給對手使絆子，更不能因為掉棒而要求重賽。西方不能眼紅其他國家運用國際貿易規則趕上甚至超過自己就要求修改規則。規則的制定與改變不能只從西方的角度考慮。發達國家一味要求發展中國國家開放市場，卻對發展中國家放鬆技術出口管制、降低專利壁壘的訴求置之不理，這公平嗎？

三是管控（Regulation）。要管控好分歧和敏感問題，不能激化矛盾。中西方在某些問題上存在分歧不足為怪，“物之不齊，物之情也”。關鍵是要把這些分歧放在合適的位置並予以妥善處理，不要讓其干擾雙邊關係發展的大局。有些問題涉及到中西方不同的意識形態和價值觀，是爭不出個所以然的。雙方吵來吵去，既傷和氣，最後還什麼事都幹不成。中國老話講，“智者求同，愚者求異”。我們何不求同存異，控制分歧點，擴大合作面，聚焦共同利益呢？

女士們，先生們，

中加兩國意識形態和政治制度存在差異，然而，上世紀70年代，兩國老一輩政治家以非凡的政治勇氣和遠見卓識，衝破重重阻力，開啓了中加關係的大門。加拿大成為最早同新中國建交的西方國家之一。中方歷來重視發展中加關係。兩國經濟互補性強，是天然的合作伙伴。兩國都支持多邊主義和自由貿易，在很多國際地區問題上持相近的觀點。

當前，中加關係陷入“冰點”並面臨巨大困難，中方對此極為痛心。“解鈴還須繫鈴人”。我們強烈呼籲加方能夠客觀、公正看待中國發展，尊重中方的重大關切，不要再做損害中方利益的事。特別是，要從戰略和長遠角度看待兩國關係，而不是把發展對華關係只當作解決眼前困難的權宜之計。只有如此，中加關係才能少些干擾和波折，行穩致遠。

（翻頁查看英文）

（May 23, The Globe and Mail Centre, Toronto）

Honorable Mr. Jean Chrétien,

Mr. David Mulroney,

Mr. Darryl White, CEO of BMO Financial Group,

Mr. Phillip Crawley, Publisher & CEO of The Globe and Mail,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Good afternoon!

To begin with, I would like to show my sincere respect to Mr. Jean Chrétien, former Prime Minister of Canada. When you served as the Prime Minister of Canada, you were positively contributing to promoting China-Canada relations which enjoyed a “golden decade” back then. The Chinese people always values friendship and we have all along remembered you as our old friend.  

For clear reasons, the current China-Canada relations are facing serious difficulties and are situated at the rock bottom since the two countries have established diplomatic relations. I have noticed that all sectors in Canada have paid high attention to it and they have different opinions. The media including The Globe and Mail have many reports and comments on this matter, including some criticisms against and blames on China as well as some rational thoughts.

What’s the matter with China-Canada relations? Why would the relations come across the current obstacles? What are our future ways out? Under such backgrounds, I believe this seminar is a very timely one, which provides us with an excellent communication platform. I would like to show my gratitude to The Globe and Mail and the Bank of Montreal for organizing this event.  

At the very beginning, the theme of today’s seminar is Rules of Engagement—Reframing Sino-Canadian Relations. Analyzed from the etymology, the word “engagement” has very nuanced implications, including the meaning of “establishing a clear relationship with commitment as the constraint”. This is one of the diplomatic terms in the U.S. policies towards China.

Over the decades, Western countries represented by the U.S. have pursued the policy of “engagement + containment”, which is to use two methods, the gentle one and the harsh one, to guide and constrain China onto the track set by the West, which is to implement the Western liberal democracy politically and follow the free market mode economically. The “engagement” is the gentle method while the “containment” is the harsh one.

However, China has not developed in the directions designed by the U.S. led-Western countries eventually. Instead, China is making great strides along the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics which corresponds with its domestic conditions.

This has greatly disappointed Western countries and also made them reflect. However, the result of the reflection is that, a sizeable proportion of people in the strategic community of Western countries, especially in the U.S., believe the “engagement strategy” on China has failed. This considerably leads to the policy transformation of the Trump administration of the U.S. to regard China as its strategic competitor.

Why would the “engagement strategy” have failed？This involves some important questions:

Firstly, how should the West think of China?

To be honest, Western countries have always regarded China as an abnormal country rather than a normal one with equal status as themselves. They, bearing the “mercy” in mind, condescend to China and want to save China from the dominance of “autocracy” and “dictatorship” with their “universal values”, which results in the “engagement strategy”. They hope to forge China with the “strategy”  into what they want it to be.

However, China, as a 5000 year old Eastern civilization, has a much longer history than all the existing Western countries. Therefore, it is an “impossible mission” to transform such a country into a Western-like one.

After the First Opium War in 1840, China had been trying  many ways to realize modernization, including saving the nation by engaging in industry, constitutional monarchy, and republican democracy, which all failed eventually. Impoverished and enfeebled, China was oppressed by great powers externally and trapped in tangled warfare of warlords internally. Suffering misery and despair, the people found it hard to live. At the Paris Peace Conference held in 1919, China, a victorious nation, could not reclaim its land occupied by Germany, a defeated nation, which completely smashed the fantasy of Chinese people on Western democratic countries and there broke out the famous “May Fourth Movement”.

This movement introduced Marxism into China and gave birth to the Communist Party of China (CPC). The CPC, based on the social reality of China, responds to the appeals from the people. After 28 years of extremely hard and bitter struggle, the CPC overthrew “three heavy mountains” of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism oppressing the Chinese people and founded the New China as well as established the socialist system, which brought about a leap forward whereby the Chinese nation reversed its decline and set out towards prosperity and strength. Therefore, the leadership of the CPC and the path of socialism are the choice of the Chinese people and an inexorable historical trend.

However, just because of the CPC’s leadership and the socialist system, Western countries allege China as an “autocracy” with “no freedom” and “violating human rights”, regardless of the fact that China has realized its modernization and become the second largest economy in the world in only a few decades while it took its Western counterparts several hundred years to achieve the same, that China has lifted several hundred millions of people out of poverty, contributing 70 percent to the poverty alleviation worldwide, that there are 160 million Chinese traveling every year overseas freely without detaining in Western countries as refugees, and that five major world religions legally exist in China with 200 million disciples, about 5,500 religious organizations, and 144 thousand places of worship. Is there in the world an autocracy so benevolent and benign as that?

In March this year, the UN has released the World Happiness Report 2019, which comprehensively analyzes and ranks the happiness index of countries in the world. Although released by the UN, the report was actually a compilation of surveys in 140 countries and regions by some experts at Gallup, a well-known Western polling company.

According to the report, in 2018, Libya ranked the 70th while China ranked the 86th. This year, Libya ranks the 72nd while China slides 10 places to the 96th. This ranking is very sarcastic, as it indicates that Western experts believe that the current happiness index of the Chinese people is even lower than that of the Libyan people whose country is torn by war and ravaged in terrorist attacks. There must be something wrong.

At present, Western media and politicians are very keen on playing up and defaming the vocational education and training centers established in Xinjiang by the Chinese government in accordance with the law. The aim of China establishing the centers is to eradicate extremism and take strict precautions against the spreading of violent terrorism thought, and we can see similar actions in some Western countries as well.

However, this preventive anti-terrorism move and innovative implementation of the deradicalization has been distorted by some Westerners as the means of infringing the rights and interests of the ethnic minority groups and curtailing their freedom of faith and religions. These Westerners only pay their attention to the human rights of several “defenders of human rights” who have violated the Chinese laws and turned a blind eye to the human rights of the victims in violent and terrorist attacks and the human rights of more than 1.3 billion people in China as well as 24 million people in Xinjiang.

Actually, in more than ten years before the centers were established, there were thousands of violent and terrorist attacks in Xinjiang, which had led to the death and injury of tens of thousands of innocent people. These terrorists are sanguinary in means and their heinous attacks are worse than the attacks happened in New Zealand and Sri Lanka recently and in Toronto a year ago.

China’s establishment of these centers is meant to help these people who have been “brainwashed” by the extremist thoughts of violence and terrorism to get rid of those thoughts and learn work and living skills, which gets instant results. The social security in Xinjiang has been remarkably improved. In the recent two years or so, there has not been a single violent and terrorist attack and no more innocent people have been harmed. I wonder, from the perspective of the Chinese people and people in Xinjiang, is this good or bad?

The two examples I mentioned above are to remind certain Westerners that they should observe China not only from the perspective of Western countries but also from that of China. Moreover, they cannot hold the view of “either this or that” or “black or white” and should not believe that everything that is different from those in Western countries is wrong and evil, or the same thing as what the West does will be wrong and evil, if it is done by China. Only in this way can they understand China in an objective and comprehensive manner and change the misunderstandings about and prejudices against China fundamentally.

Secondly, how should the West view China’s development?

In the West, currently, several kinds of allegations against China’s development prevail, for instance “China economic threat theory” and “China technology theft theory”.

Is China’s development a threat? I want to tell you that the Chinese nation does not have the gene of aggression. We have never launched a war of aggression against any other country and we have never occupied one inch of overseas colony in history. The world-famous Great Wall is an example. It was in the aim to fend off the invasion of the nomadic tribes in the north that China built the Great Wall. In the Ming Dynasty (early 1500 A.D.), a Chinese great navigator Zheng He embarked on the voyages to the West Oceans for seven times, bringing tea leaves, silk and porcelain as trading goods, instead of war, slaughter and occupation to the countries he visited.

For another example, the South China Sea islands have all along been the inherent territory of China. After the World War II, the then China’s national government recaptured these islands from Japanese aggressors with the assistance of the U.S. warships. In order to specify the sovereignty, rights and interests, the national government designated the nine-dash line in 1947. Before 1970s, no country has objected to the nine-dash line in the South China Sea or claimed for sovereignty over the South China Sea islands. After 1970s, however, with the discovery of massive oil gas in the South China Sea, some littoral countries, out of their own benefits, began to invade and illegally occupy some South China Sea islands, which was the root cause for the South China Sea Issue.

With its national strength, China nowadays can absolutely recover the occupied islands. However, without resorting to such a step, China sticks to resolving disputes through dialogues and negotiations with the countries directly concerned, which shows that China has not threatened and will never threaten other countries.

Instead of a threat, China’s development is nothing less than a great contribution to the world. For several decades, China’s economy has developed rapidly, becoming an engine of the global economic growth. China’s contribution to global economic growth has stayed at about 30 percent for several years, far exceeding those combined of developed countries in Europe and America.

The Belt and Road Initiative proposed by China provides growth drivers for Inner Eurasia which was isolated from the rest of the world in the past, for developing countries which were short of infrastructure for economic development in the past, and for European countries with sluggish economic growth. The initiative has made the markets of various countries interconnected, provided developing countries with ways of poverty alleviation and provided impetus for economic growth for the world.

China’s economic development and progress in science and technologies are not the pennies from the heaven, let alone the ripoff from other countries. These achievements are made by all the Chinese people with their hard work and unremitting efforts. The American accusations on China’s forced transfer of technology, violating the intellectual property and unfair competition of State-owned enterprises are based on lies and bias. They conveniently lose sight of their own breach of trust and fairness and commercial bullying vis-a-vis China. If an aircraft carrier could be launched by stealing; if a space probe could land on the surface of the moon by unfair competiton; and if the 5G Technology could become world-leading by violating intellectual property, then all countries would be developed countries like the U.S..

Western countries’ psychological imbalance towards China’s economic and technological development comes down to the West-egotism. They always believe that they are superior to any other nations. In the past centuries, the West did make great contributions to progress of human civilization. But China had previously won an important position in the history of world civilization long before.

For this reason, the West cannot narrowly believe that they will take the lead forever while ignoring other nations’ rights to subsistence and development and even depriving them of it through improper means. After the Cold War, the West took the “end of history” theory as a creed and arrogantly believed that the Western system reached the peak of perfection and it was the best system in the world. Therefore, they launched wars against “non-Western countries”, one after another, which not only destroyed the world peace and stability but also consumed their own resources and energy.

Some levelheaded and insightful statesmen take a clear view on this. After making a phone call to President Donald Trump in April this year, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said to the public that China has never been at war with anybody since its establishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S. in 1979. China has always focused on its domestic development but the U.S. has always stayed at war. The U.S. has only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its 242-year history.

In his new book “Has the West lost it?”, former Singaporean diplomat and scholar Kishore Mahbubani proposes the “3M” strategy for the West: first M is “Minimalist”, which means fewer wars and less intervention in domestic affairs of other countries; second M is “Multilateral”, which means to be open to the opinions of “non-Western countries”; and last one is “Machiavellian”, which means to maintain long-term interests by using strategic wisdom. This strategy deserves Western countries’ serious consideration.

Thirdly, how should the West engage with China?

Chinese people are in the best position to judge China’s development. We are confident about our own path, theory, system and culture. We will never change our own development path because of the different viewpoints of Western countries and several discredited articles in the West. We will stick to the path that we choose. For Western countries, the problem is how to get along with China. I would like to give “3R” suggestions:

The first is Respect. The disrespect of China’s culture and the differences in national conditions is the root cause for the failure of “engagement strategy” of the West. In order to achieve more effective “engagement”, Western countries must respect and treat China as equal politically. Both the Chinese side and the Western side should respect each other’s core interests and major concerns and they shall never interfere in the internal affairs of each other.

In 2014, for example, the protest of “Occupying Central with Love and Peace” (OCLP) broke out in Hong Kong, and lasted for 79 days, leading to social disorder and damages in all sectors and severely affecting citizens’ life. In the end, the government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) took measures in accordance with laws.

However, these illegal activities were supported and glorified by Western countries, including the United Kingdom (U.K.). They made indiscreet remarks and criticisms on the measures taken by the Hong Kong SAR government.

Recently, some environmentalists in London have brought parts of central London to a standstill, but it was clamped down on by the government with iron grip in less than eight days, and the protesters were called rabbles and mobs. Over 1,000 protesters were arrested and more than 40 of them were prosecuted. Former Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying of the Hong Kong SAR observed, “The U.K. police did not stand for 79 days, not even 7.9 days.” How ironic！

The second is Reciprocity. We should carry out cooperation in economy and trade in the spirit of mutual benefit and win-win results, instead of solely taking into account the benefits of one single side. In the early days of reform and opening-up, China provided super-national treatment for foreign-invested companies. While Chinese companies had to pay enormous fees for land use, foreign-invested companies were exempted from paying these fees. While Chinese companies had to pay heavy business tax, their foreign counterparts were exempted from paying the business tax for the first two years and were allowed to pay halved business tax for the next three years.

In 2001, China cancelled the super-national treatment for foreign-invested companies upon its accession to World Trade Organization, meaning that all companies, foreign-invested or not, shall pay tax and fees on the equal-footed base. It is a common practice in the world, yet some Western countries began to complain that China’s investment environment worsened and they had difficulties in market access. They forgot that they had made a bundle when enjoying the super-national treatment. Today, they blame on China for cancelling the super-national treatment, saying that the Chinese side gains extra advantages by unfair means.

This is like a 4x100 meters relay. The West should not attribute their decline of competitiveness to their rivals, but should run faster, instead of obstructing the rivals. They also cannot require for a rematch because they drop the stick. The West cannot require changing the rules when they are caught up with or even surpassed by those who abide by international trade rules.

The formulation and change of rules cannot only go to the West’s advantage. Is it fair that developed countries just simply demand developing countries open their markets wider while ignoring developing countries’ appeals for relaxing the export control of technologies and lowering the patent barriers?

The third is Regulation. We should manage divergences and sensitive issues, rather than sharpening contradictions. It is natural for the Chinese side and the Western side to have some divergences on certain issues, just as Mencius, the great philosopher in ancient China, said, “Things are born to be different.” The key is to place these divergences in a proper position and properly handle them so that they will not affect the general situation of bilateral relations.

As for some issues arising from the differences in ideologies and values of both sides, it is pointless for both sides to argue on and on, which will not only destroy the harmony but also end up with nothing. As a Chinese saying goes, “The wise expand common ground while the unwise aggravate differences”. Then why don’t we seek common ground while shelving differences, control divergences, expand cooperation, and focus on common interests?

Ladies and gentlemen,

China and Canada are two countries of different ideology and political system. Nevertheless, in the 1970s, the elder generations of politicians of both countries forged diplomatic relations with remarkable political courage and insight despite all the obstacles. Since Canada is one of the first Western countries to establish diplomatic ties with New China, China has all along valued bilateral relations. Thanks to the strong economic complementarity, the two countries are natural cooperative partners. Moreover, both countries support multilateralism and free trade and share similar views on many international and regional issues.

It saddens us that the current China-Canada relations are “at a freezing point” and face huge difficulties. The knots shall be untied by those who got them tied. We strongly call upon the Canadian side to view China’s development in a fair and objective manner, respect China’s major concerns and stop the moves that undermine the interests of China. We hope the Canadian side will particularly view bilateral relations from a strategic and long-term perspective rather than treating bilateral relations as an expedient solution to its current difficulties. Only in this way can the bilateral relations steer clear of disturbance and bumpiness and enjoy stable and long-term development.