论文部分内容阅读
Research Fellow at the Thabo Mbeki African Leadership Institute,
South Africa
It is the first time in human history that nations of the global south have a position beyond that of victims within international system. Positioning of the developing countries at the contested international system reveals no intentions of dominance or subordination of the less fortunate. Instead, the aim is to complement already existing human achievements to establish a community of shared future for humanity. The rise of developing nations with China stand for total poverty eradication, fighting pandemics, preserving regional and global peace, industrialization, agricultural modernization, urbanization and digitization. The developing nations subscribe to the notion that there is no “best model”, where one size fits all. Throughout human history, the so called “best model” has proven to lack applicability when exported to other regions of the world. Instead, the so-called “best model” has resulted in imposition of systems that favour a select group of nations over others, in the process of eroding cultures, traditions, language, knowledge systems resulting in impoverishment of the controlled nations.
The genesis of the global south towards recent successes took place during the Bandung conference in 1955. The rise to the centre-stage by nations of South-South cooperation is the realization of prophetic words uttered by President Sukarno in that conference: “Now we are free, sovereign, and independent. We are again masters in our own house. We do not need to go to the continents to confer.” The words were uttered during an era dominated by the narrative of the “Cold War”. It was an era where those who deemed themselves as masters of the universe led by the rationale; “my way or highway” or rather those who do not agree to be dominated by us are our enemies. It was an era that was to witness total domination and almost annihilation of nations that did not succumb to Western powers.
Global Paradigm Shift
in the eyes of the West
The end of the Cold War era has been dominated by two narratives. The first being argument that liberal democracy marked an epitome of human civilization and governance as expounded in the “End of History” by Fukuyama. Second being the thesis that purport the rise of a new world order rise from “Clash of Civilization” by Huntington. The two narratives focused on the fall or attempts to fight back to the world centre-stage by Western powers. The “End of History” by Fukuyama was informed by a narrative that Western civilization was the maker of human history. It first regards success of the French revolution as the genesis of a functioning democracy. Then, it reads circumstances around the end of Cold War era as triumph of liberal democracy. Fukuyama purports that liberal democracy is the final form of government for all nations. In his famous words, he wrote that “there can be no progression from liberal democracy to an alternative system”.
Fukuyama summarized his thesis in the following argument when commenting on the end of the Cold War:
“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
However, Fukuyama has been cited as stating that people are misreading his work by reaching conclusions made in the previous section. To clarify his position, he casts the net wider, moving away from democracy as applied by the United States of America. Instead, he cites examples of the European Union that have “managed to embrace democracy beyond confines of a mere sovereign state”. He points out that:
“The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organization. Following Alexandre Kojève, the Russian-French philosopher who inspired my original argument, I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU’s attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a ‘post-historical’ world than the Americans’ continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.”
The casting of the net wider by Fukuyama strengthens his view and emphasis the history starts with democracies of the French revolution (1789-1794), which comprises of Western modernity and that all other systems of government ought to be regarded as periphery or temporary inconveniences at best. What Fukuyama misses is the fact that the Cold War consisted two sides and that its end did not necessarily mean the demise of either parties but a mutation into a new alternative system unbeknown to all at the time.
However, Huntington later countered the thesis laid forth by Fukuyama. Huntington argued that the end of the Cold War was to be followed by a long period of “Clash of civilizations”. Huntington was of the idea that with the end of intense ideological confrontation as the end Cold War promised, global conflicts would take a form of cultural conflict. Huntington argued that: “The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”
Huntington thesis may be regarded as being spot on in view of terror that engulfed the world throughout the first decade of the 21st Century. The “war on terror” that followed and the way it was framed in terms of civilization and religious conflicts rather than war between nations speaks further to Huntington thesis. However, to understand the setting of Huntington’s thesis and its sustainability it is imperative that following questions be provided with answers. What was central in the idea or underlying factors that led to arguments observed in Huntington thesis? Was it a prophecy on reinvention of the wheel where a new dominant modernity was to be established from scratch or was a new type going to emerge from “Clash of Civilizations”? An answer to this question will help understand whether Huntington just like Fukuyama had founded his thesis on the assumed supremacy of the Western modernity.
In answering the above questions one would need to understand Huntington’s analysis of the foundation of liberal democracy and its widespread to different cultures. Huntington argued that there were no universal values underlying liberal democracy. He argued that the latter sprang from Western experience and was very much rooted in Europe’s Christian past. Furthermore, he pointed out that there is no particular reason to think that liberal democracy will spread and take root in other, in culturally different parts of the world. To the extent that democracy has spread to places like Japan or South Korea, it is the result of American political, military, and economic power; but should that power decline relative to that of other civilizations, the appeal of democratic ideas will diminish with it.
In Clash of Civilizations Huntington predicts a return to a medieval time where civilizations would start behaving like imperial 19th-century states, forming alliances against one another. One wonders why Huntington imagined civilizations outside Western modernity unable to form coherent solidarities that would in the long run merge into a world system? One further wonders why Huntington could not fathom religions other than Christianity to possess an ability of organizing a new world order beyond clashes and religion. The answer to these questions may be as simple as: Huntington’s imagination was centred around the idea that there existed no coherent organizing power beyond that witnessed within the constructs of Western Modernity. The struggles of the South-South cooperation and other bodies contesting the world system had gone unnoticed for Huntington. Let alone the idea that there existed another civilization or a people with an ability of organizing a coherent world system beyond those of the global north. Cross-Cultural Communication and Colonialism
Cultural diversity has always been in the forefront when outside cultural values proved to be beneficial to local communities. These imported values tend to influence both rulers and grassroots of the host territory and are eventually adopted as mainstream to the benefit of entire society. However, in the case of colonialism and other forms of imposed rule, cultural diversity tends to be that of an imposed nature. The imposed form of cultural diversity tends to benefit foreign masters and in most cases, their countries of origin. Nevertheless, overtime even this oppressive form of cultural diversity tends to become part and parcel of mainstream local culture.
The recent wave of globalization tends to founded on either of the two above defined premises of cultural diversity with the newly arrive culture taking the centre stage to an extent of almost replacing the primacy of original local cultures. The reason for replacement of the “old cultures” by “new-cultures” over time is the result of the latter being deemed viable for purposes of acquiring a variety of capitals from symbolic, social, political to economic capital. The essence being that values in place possess the ability of being converted into long term sustainable forms of capital. The imported values being sought out as currency are those that matter in the corridors of both political and economic power. Using above analysis, the rise of China and nations of the global south into the centre-stage of the international system may translate into widespread and takeover by their cultures in many regions of the world replacing local lifestyles. Is this the aim of the developing countries, specifically China? Does China aim at taking over the world and replacing lifestyle wherever it may have vested interest around the world?
It is well apparent that the rise of China and its greater economic influence will result into widespread of Chinese culture. However, there are several factors that argue against the notion that Chinese culture will ever replace local cultures because of its economic dominance around the world.
The first factor that would play a role in impeding Chinese culture from taking over from local cultures is the failure and a bloody history of the Western colonial project. Moreover, beyond the global divide that resulted from the colonial project; the nature of its short life span would dissuade China from entertaining any colonial ideas as a solution to sustain the strong position it enjoys in the international community. There is ample evidence in history that speaks to China being a nation that prefers long term to short term strategies. Beginning with the histories of Admiral Zheng He (1371–1433), China has never had interest in conquering and occupying foreign lands beyond its peripheries. Furthermore, the fall of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912), which resulted in a protracted war against foreign invaders would further dissuade China from any colonial and cultural imperialism tendencies. Multiple China projects around the globe need to avoid at all cost recent experiences and turmoil resultant from the Western colonial project. The recent re-emergence of China into the global centre stage requires a peaceful environment that would allow business to prosper.
The success and appeal of the Belt and Road Initiative speaks volumes to the lack of China’s interests in any form of colonialism and cultural imperialism. Furthermore, the long-standing principles of peaceful coexistence adopted in the early days of the inception of the Peoples Republic of China stand in contrast to the essence and foundations of the colonial project. The concept of traditional Chinese culture of seeking the middle ground or consensus is a world away from confrontational tendencies that served as the mainstay of the colonial project.
Multi-civilizational Dialogue or Dialogue Among Civilizations
In the words of Tu Weiming, the re-emergence of China has introduced into our mist the concept of multi-civilization dialogue. A “humanistic vision” that:
“Addresses the ideal of universal ethic in the context of cultural diversity…to reach the highest level of self-awareness…characteriz(ing) the richness and complexity of the human…Unilateralism is ill-conceived in both theory and practice. It fails to understand that economic globalization as well as homogenizes cultural diversity… Liberty without justice, rationality without sympathy, legality without civility, rights without responsibility, and individual dignity without social solidarity cannot bring about an enduring world order nurtured by a richly textured culture of peace… Only through ‘dialogue among civilizations’ can a thick description of universal ethics emerge, founded on promotion of ‘dialogue among civilizations’ which directly aims to transcend anthropocentrism, instrumental rationality, and aggressive individualism.”
Does this mean that China is any different from previous spades and advances of globalization? Sehume defines the ability to participate in globalization as follows: “Globalization highlights the point that the 21st century is defined chiefly as comprised of ‘knowledge societies’ and is a period where ‘knowledge is power’.” In describing China as an agent of globalization, one ought to add that China makes emphasis on distribution of tools of globalization rather that use its abilities to impose on other cultures and nations. The latest instance of China’s intentions and ability to distribute and share tools of globalization may be witnessed in the pledges it make during the Seventh Forum for China-Africa Cooperation Summit (FOCAC VII) held in Beijing recently. China pledged 60 Billion US Dollars to African countries for the purposes of implementing the “Eight Major Initiatives” which are part and parcel of the Beijing Action Plan (2019-2021). A careful reading of the “Eight Major Initiatives” reveals that China has an all-round project towards Africa. China does not aim at discarding what is no longer useful to China to Africa. Instead, it aims at technological transfer, initiate new industries to the point where Africa is prevented to go through some ills of industrial development such as pollution.
Work Together to Build
a Community of Shared Future
for Mankind
In January 2017 President Xi Jinping opened his address at the United Nations in Geneva by asking the following questions as a summary of what was troubling several world leaders:
“Where did we come from? Where are we now? And where are we going?”
To answer the three questions President Xi mapped the trajectory travelled by humanity through the entire 20th Century inclusive of success and failures of mankind. Most foundational in his speech was the call for world peace and development for entire mankind.
“Over the past century and more, mankind has gone through bloody hot wars and the chilling Cold War, but also achieved remarkable development and huge progress. In the first half of last century, mankind suffered the scourges of two world wars, and the people yearned for the end of war and the advent of peace. In the 1950s and 1960s, people in colonies awakened and fought to shake off shackles and achieve independence. Since the end of the Cold War, people have pursued a shared aspiration, namely, to expand cooperation and promote common development.
Peace and development: this has been the aspiration held dear by mankind over the past century. However, the goal to achieve peace and development is far from being met. We need to respond to the people’s call, take up the baton of history and forge ahead on the marathon track toward peace and development.”
In the end of the above passage President Xi Jinping called upon world leaders to respond to the people’s call and move ahead towards the road of peace and development.
The call to move ahead towards the road of peace and development was again resonated during the South-South Human Rights Forum in Beijing in December, 2017. The forum culminated with a Beijing Declaration on human rights. In such a manner, the year 2017 marked a paradigm shift and reflected the might of the global south capabilities to steadfastly take resolutions in safeguarding global peace and development. The statement of “Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity” by President Xi Jinping is testimony to China’s inclusive characterization and implementation of globalization. The statement is also a reflection and performance of traditional Chinese concept of zhongyong “Doctrine of the Mean”, which serves as guidance to everyday conduct in dealing with both minor and major affairs of mankind. Zhongyongurges individuals and society prefer to seek consensus over confrontation as a way of life.
As China reaches the apex of the global might and in its relations with the world, revealing reliance to the foundations laid down by the Doctrine of the Mean. Guidelines for the Doctrine of the Mean stress that one conforms to self-watchfulness, leniency and sincerity. In interpreting the Doctrine of the Mean, Legge stated that the goal of the mean is to maintain balance and harmony from directing the mind to a state of constant equilibrium. The person who follows the mean is on a path of duty and must never leave it. A superior person is cautious, a gentle teacher and shows no contempt for his or her inferiors.
However, this natural characterization of traditional Chinese culture and philosophy into the global stage in the form of “Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity” may be read with fear by those who perpetrated domination, victimization, exclusion in the past. The present author suggests that the notion of “Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity” ought to be read as an emergence of an inclusive “New World Order”.
Conclusions
This grand master plan of Western Modernity ruled the world for the past five centuries and tended to relegate to the periphery knowledge systems and performances of other cultures beyond the Western world. Western modernity and its primacy on individualism has played itself out and has resulted into waves of brutish unilateralism at the expenses of the very instruments it created to exercise its power over the world. The World Trade Organization and the United Nations have all today but lost dignity at the face of rampant unilateralism.
Success and sustainability of the new world order as informed by thesis of “Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity” lies on the foundation that it eliminates the notion of subordination of one nation by another. The primacy of “Five Principles of Co-existence” as declared and followed by China since the early 1950s laid foundations for the type of cooperation and synergy witnessed among nations of the South-South cooperation.
The most central and prominent circumstances that will allow promotion, implementation and sustainability of the “Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity” is the fact that all nations are left alone to seek answers in accordance with local conditions and value systems. In short, there will be no imposition of one nation’s way of life over another.
The rise of China all over the globe with emphasis of non-conquering ethos is a promise of a new world order unlike none previously witnessed. China has positioned itself not as an alternative to Western modernity but as a complement to the advancements already made by humankind the world over. It is within these analyses that one has a better understanding of what China means in expressions such as win-win cooperation, mutual understanding, mutual development and peaceful coexistence, and the Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity.
South Africa
It is the first time in human history that nations of the global south have a position beyond that of victims within international system. Positioning of the developing countries at the contested international system reveals no intentions of dominance or subordination of the less fortunate. Instead, the aim is to complement already existing human achievements to establish a community of shared future for humanity. The rise of developing nations with China stand for total poverty eradication, fighting pandemics, preserving regional and global peace, industrialization, agricultural modernization, urbanization and digitization. The developing nations subscribe to the notion that there is no “best model”, where one size fits all. Throughout human history, the so called “best model” has proven to lack applicability when exported to other regions of the world. Instead, the so-called “best model” has resulted in imposition of systems that favour a select group of nations over others, in the process of eroding cultures, traditions, language, knowledge systems resulting in impoverishment of the controlled nations.
The genesis of the global south towards recent successes took place during the Bandung conference in 1955. The rise to the centre-stage by nations of South-South cooperation is the realization of prophetic words uttered by President Sukarno in that conference: “Now we are free, sovereign, and independent. We are again masters in our own house. We do not need to go to the continents to confer.” The words were uttered during an era dominated by the narrative of the “Cold War”. It was an era where those who deemed themselves as masters of the universe led by the rationale; “my way or highway” or rather those who do not agree to be dominated by us are our enemies. It was an era that was to witness total domination and almost annihilation of nations that did not succumb to Western powers.
Global Paradigm Shift
in the eyes of the West
The end of the Cold War era has been dominated by two narratives. The first being argument that liberal democracy marked an epitome of human civilization and governance as expounded in the “End of History” by Fukuyama. Second being the thesis that purport the rise of a new world order rise from “Clash of Civilization” by Huntington. The two narratives focused on the fall or attempts to fight back to the world centre-stage by Western powers. The “End of History” by Fukuyama was informed by a narrative that Western civilization was the maker of human history. It first regards success of the French revolution as the genesis of a functioning democracy. Then, it reads circumstances around the end of Cold War era as triumph of liberal democracy. Fukuyama purports that liberal democracy is the final form of government for all nations. In his famous words, he wrote that “there can be no progression from liberal democracy to an alternative system”.
Fukuyama summarized his thesis in the following argument when commenting on the end of the Cold War:
“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
However, Fukuyama has been cited as stating that people are misreading his work by reaching conclusions made in the previous section. To clarify his position, he casts the net wider, moving away from democracy as applied by the United States of America. Instead, he cites examples of the European Union that have “managed to embrace democracy beyond confines of a mere sovereign state”. He points out that:
“The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organization. Following Alexandre Kojève, the Russian-French philosopher who inspired my original argument, I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU’s attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a ‘post-historical’ world than the Americans’ continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.”
The casting of the net wider by Fukuyama strengthens his view and emphasis the history starts with democracies of the French revolution (1789-1794), which comprises of Western modernity and that all other systems of government ought to be regarded as periphery or temporary inconveniences at best. What Fukuyama misses is the fact that the Cold War consisted two sides and that its end did not necessarily mean the demise of either parties but a mutation into a new alternative system unbeknown to all at the time.
However, Huntington later countered the thesis laid forth by Fukuyama. Huntington argued that the end of the Cold War was to be followed by a long period of “Clash of civilizations”. Huntington was of the idea that with the end of intense ideological confrontation as the end Cold War promised, global conflicts would take a form of cultural conflict. Huntington argued that: “The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”
Huntington thesis may be regarded as being spot on in view of terror that engulfed the world throughout the first decade of the 21st Century. The “war on terror” that followed and the way it was framed in terms of civilization and religious conflicts rather than war between nations speaks further to Huntington thesis. However, to understand the setting of Huntington’s thesis and its sustainability it is imperative that following questions be provided with answers. What was central in the idea or underlying factors that led to arguments observed in Huntington thesis? Was it a prophecy on reinvention of the wheel where a new dominant modernity was to be established from scratch or was a new type going to emerge from “Clash of Civilizations”? An answer to this question will help understand whether Huntington just like Fukuyama had founded his thesis on the assumed supremacy of the Western modernity.
In answering the above questions one would need to understand Huntington’s analysis of the foundation of liberal democracy and its widespread to different cultures. Huntington argued that there were no universal values underlying liberal democracy. He argued that the latter sprang from Western experience and was very much rooted in Europe’s Christian past. Furthermore, he pointed out that there is no particular reason to think that liberal democracy will spread and take root in other, in culturally different parts of the world. To the extent that democracy has spread to places like Japan or South Korea, it is the result of American political, military, and economic power; but should that power decline relative to that of other civilizations, the appeal of democratic ideas will diminish with it.
In Clash of Civilizations Huntington predicts a return to a medieval time where civilizations would start behaving like imperial 19th-century states, forming alliances against one another. One wonders why Huntington imagined civilizations outside Western modernity unable to form coherent solidarities that would in the long run merge into a world system? One further wonders why Huntington could not fathom religions other than Christianity to possess an ability of organizing a new world order beyond clashes and religion. The answer to these questions may be as simple as: Huntington’s imagination was centred around the idea that there existed no coherent organizing power beyond that witnessed within the constructs of Western Modernity. The struggles of the South-South cooperation and other bodies contesting the world system had gone unnoticed for Huntington. Let alone the idea that there existed another civilization or a people with an ability of organizing a coherent world system beyond those of the global north. Cross-Cultural Communication and Colonialism
Cultural diversity has always been in the forefront when outside cultural values proved to be beneficial to local communities. These imported values tend to influence both rulers and grassroots of the host territory and are eventually adopted as mainstream to the benefit of entire society. However, in the case of colonialism and other forms of imposed rule, cultural diversity tends to be that of an imposed nature. The imposed form of cultural diversity tends to benefit foreign masters and in most cases, their countries of origin. Nevertheless, overtime even this oppressive form of cultural diversity tends to become part and parcel of mainstream local culture.
The recent wave of globalization tends to founded on either of the two above defined premises of cultural diversity with the newly arrive culture taking the centre stage to an extent of almost replacing the primacy of original local cultures. The reason for replacement of the “old cultures” by “new-cultures” over time is the result of the latter being deemed viable for purposes of acquiring a variety of capitals from symbolic, social, political to economic capital. The essence being that values in place possess the ability of being converted into long term sustainable forms of capital. The imported values being sought out as currency are those that matter in the corridors of both political and economic power. Using above analysis, the rise of China and nations of the global south into the centre-stage of the international system may translate into widespread and takeover by their cultures in many regions of the world replacing local lifestyles. Is this the aim of the developing countries, specifically China? Does China aim at taking over the world and replacing lifestyle wherever it may have vested interest around the world?
It is well apparent that the rise of China and its greater economic influence will result into widespread of Chinese culture. However, there are several factors that argue against the notion that Chinese culture will ever replace local cultures because of its economic dominance around the world.
The first factor that would play a role in impeding Chinese culture from taking over from local cultures is the failure and a bloody history of the Western colonial project. Moreover, beyond the global divide that resulted from the colonial project; the nature of its short life span would dissuade China from entertaining any colonial ideas as a solution to sustain the strong position it enjoys in the international community. There is ample evidence in history that speaks to China being a nation that prefers long term to short term strategies. Beginning with the histories of Admiral Zheng He (1371–1433), China has never had interest in conquering and occupying foreign lands beyond its peripheries. Furthermore, the fall of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912), which resulted in a protracted war against foreign invaders would further dissuade China from any colonial and cultural imperialism tendencies. Multiple China projects around the globe need to avoid at all cost recent experiences and turmoil resultant from the Western colonial project. The recent re-emergence of China into the global centre stage requires a peaceful environment that would allow business to prosper.
The success and appeal of the Belt and Road Initiative speaks volumes to the lack of China’s interests in any form of colonialism and cultural imperialism. Furthermore, the long-standing principles of peaceful coexistence adopted in the early days of the inception of the Peoples Republic of China stand in contrast to the essence and foundations of the colonial project. The concept of traditional Chinese culture of seeking the middle ground or consensus is a world away from confrontational tendencies that served as the mainstay of the colonial project.
Multi-civilizational Dialogue or Dialogue Among Civilizations
In the words of Tu Weiming, the re-emergence of China has introduced into our mist the concept of multi-civilization dialogue. A “humanistic vision” that:
“Addresses the ideal of universal ethic in the context of cultural diversity…to reach the highest level of self-awareness…characteriz(ing) the richness and complexity of the human…Unilateralism is ill-conceived in both theory and practice. It fails to understand that economic globalization as well as homogenizes cultural diversity… Liberty without justice, rationality without sympathy, legality without civility, rights without responsibility, and individual dignity without social solidarity cannot bring about an enduring world order nurtured by a richly textured culture of peace… Only through ‘dialogue among civilizations’ can a thick description of universal ethics emerge, founded on promotion of ‘dialogue among civilizations’ which directly aims to transcend anthropocentrism, instrumental rationality, and aggressive individualism.”
Does this mean that China is any different from previous spades and advances of globalization? Sehume defines the ability to participate in globalization as follows: “Globalization highlights the point that the 21st century is defined chiefly as comprised of ‘knowledge societies’ and is a period where ‘knowledge is power’.” In describing China as an agent of globalization, one ought to add that China makes emphasis on distribution of tools of globalization rather that use its abilities to impose on other cultures and nations. The latest instance of China’s intentions and ability to distribute and share tools of globalization may be witnessed in the pledges it make during the Seventh Forum for China-Africa Cooperation Summit (FOCAC VII) held in Beijing recently. China pledged 60 Billion US Dollars to African countries for the purposes of implementing the “Eight Major Initiatives” which are part and parcel of the Beijing Action Plan (2019-2021). A careful reading of the “Eight Major Initiatives” reveals that China has an all-round project towards Africa. China does not aim at discarding what is no longer useful to China to Africa. Instead, it aims at technological transfer, initiate new industries to the point where Africa is prevented to go through some ills of industrial development such as pollution.
Work Together to Build
a Community of Shared Future
for Mankind
In January 2017 President Xi Jinping opened his address at the United Nations in Geneva by asking the following questions as a summary of what was troubling several world leaders:
“Where did we come from? Where are we now? And where are we going?”
To answer the three questions President Xi mapped the trajectory travelled by humanity through the entire 20th Century inclusive of success and failures of mankind. Most foundational in his speech was the call for world peace and development for entire mankind.
“Over the past century and more, mankind has gone through bloody hot wars and the chilling Cold War, but also achieved remarkable development and huge progress. In the first half of last century, mankind suffered the scourges of two world wars, and the people yearned for the end of war and the advent of peace. In the 1950s and 1960s, people in colonies awakened and fought to shake off shackles and achieve independence. Since the end of the Cold War, people have pursued a shared aspiration, namely, to expand cooperation and promote common development.
Peace and development: this has been the aspiration held dear by mankind over the past century. However, the goal to achieve peace and development is far from being met. We need to respond to the people’s call, take up the baton of history and forge ahead on the marathon track toward peace and development.”
In the end of the above passage President Xi Jinping called upon world leaders to respond to the people’s call and move ahead towards the road of peace and development.
The call to move ahead towards the road of peace and development was again resonated during the South-South Human Rights Forum in Beijing in December, 2017. The forum culminated with a Beijing Declaration on human rights. In such a manner, the year 2017 marked a paradigm shift and reflected the might of the global south capabilities to steadfastly take resolutions in safeguarding global peace and development. The statement of “Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity” by President Xi Jinping is testimony to China’s inclusive characterization and implementation of globalization. The statement is also a reflection and performance of traditional Chinese concept of zhongyong “Doctrine of the Mean”, which serves as guidance to everyday conduct in dealing with both minor and major affairs of mankind. Zhongyongurges individuals and society prefer to seek consensus over confrontation as a way of life.
As China reaches the apex of the global might and in its relations with the world, revealing reliance to the foundations laid down by the Doctrine of the Mean. Guidelines for the Doctrine of the Mean stress that one conforms to self-watchfulness, leniency and sincerity. In interpreting the Doctrine of the Mean, Legge stated that the goal of the mean is to maintain balance and harmony from directing the mind to a state of constant equilibrium. The person who follows the mean is on a path of duty and must never leave it. A superior person is cautious, a gentle teacher and shows no contempt for his or her inferiors.
However, this natural characterization of traditional Chinese culture and philosophy into the global stage in the form of “Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity” may be read with fear by those who perpetrated domination, victimization, exclusion in the past. The present author suggests that the notion of “Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity” ought to be read as an emergence of an inclusive “New World Order”.
Conclusions
This grand master plan of Western Modernity ruled the world for the past five centuries and tended to relegate to the periphery knowledge systems and performances of other cultures beyond the Western world. Western modernity and its primacy on individualism has played itself out and has resulted into waves of brutish unilateralism at the expenses of the very instruments it created to exercise its power over the world. The World Trade Organization and the United Nations have all today but lost dignity at the face of rampant unilateralism.
Success and sustainability of the new world order as informed by thesis of “Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity” lies on the foundation that it eliminates the notion of subordination of one nation by another. The primacy of “Five Principles of Co-existence” as declared and followed by China since the early 1950s laid foundations for the type of cooperation and synergy witnessed among nations of the South-South cooperation.
The most central and prominent circumstances that will allow promotion, implementation and sustainability of the “Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity” is the fact that all nations are left alone to seek answers in accordance with local conditions and value systems. In short, there will be no imposition of one nation’s way of life over another.
The rise of China all over the globe with emphasis of non-conquering ethos is a promise of a new world order unlike none previously witnessed. China has positioned itself not as an alternative to Western modernity but as a complement to the advancements already made by humankind the world over. It is within these analyses that one has a better understanding of what China means in expressions such as win-win cooperation, mutual understanding, mutual development and peaceful coexistence, and the Construction of a Community of Shared Future for Humanity.