鏇村浜у搧>>

Photo provided to Guangming Daily.

The world is now undergoing rapid and profound changes. Conflicts like those between Russia and Ukraine, and Israel and Palestine, coupled with escalating geopolitical tensions among major powers and the growing tide of economic nationalism and protectionism in the West, have created a climate of significant uncertainty about the future. The crises plaguing the post-World War II international order are no longer isolated regional issues but rather systemic, long-term challenges that affect humanity in general.

To address these immense challenges for the very survival and development of human civilization, we must prioritize political dialogue and cultural exchange, as these are the only rational and responsible courses of action. Violence and war are not an option and must be resolutely avoided. It’s essential to acknowledge that the fundamental purpose of any civilization is peace, progress, and the pursuit of better lives; war is not inherent to any civilization. While Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory may have gained some traction in the West, civilizations themselves are not inherently antagonistic, nor will they necessarily lead to conflicts. But they can be manipulated by unscrupulous people for their own agendas.

The West, led by the United States, has often reduced relations between civilizations to a binary, zero-sum game, pitting them against each other based on religion, race, ethnicity, politics, and class, which has bred division, irrationality, and violence. The Russia-Ukraine conflict, a clash within a same civilization, has been wrongly framed as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism.

In this context, development becomes the foundation of security and peace; without it, violence is likely to arise. History shows that when societies and economies thrive, the so-called clash of civilizations diminishes; when development falters, conflicts between different religions and civilizations often flare. This pattern is evident throughout history.

Instrumentalizing civilization can also lead to a vicious cycle: when development falters, certain political groups may use civilization as a tool to intensify conflicts and exacerbate developmental issues. Currently, the West is struggling to resolve its internal problems, the global economy is in decline, and structural issues in geopolitics and economics are becoming more apparent. How can the world break free from this cycle? The solution lies in fostering dialogue and returning to the foundational values inherent in each civilization. In this sense, the 1960s and 1970s were a period worthy of our reflection, when the United Nations was able to successfully promote global peace and development by advocating for dialogue among civilizations.

In response to this backdrop, China has introduced the Global Civilization Initiative, which advocates for increased exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations. Dialogue among civilizations is a global public good with the potential to eliminate discrimination and prejudice, foster understanding and trust, and promote the rational resolution of conflicts and disputes. With a view to building a community of shared future, China is committed to offering more platforms for such dialogue, thereby demonstrating the international responsibility and historical commitment as the world’s second-largest economy.

Civilizational dialogue also reflects the unique Chinese philosophy embedded in China’s proposals, which arises from the depths of the Chinese civilization, one that is characterized by several distinct traits:

First, secularism. The Chinese understanding of the world is based on the inherent nature of things rather than subjective human will. Daoism’s advocacy of “following the natural order” emphasizes respecting the inherent order of all things, while Confucianism’s “Doctrine of the Mean” advocates for slight adjustments that maintain the existing order.

Second, interdependence or “embeddability”. The Chinese civilization acknowledges the complementary nature of Yin and Yang, viewing them not as mutually exclusive forces but as elements that coexist harmoniously.

Third, openness and inclusion, as reflected in the Chinese affinity for water, which is open to and embraces all things.

Fourth, long-term view. China’s uninterrupted civilization, spanning thousands of years, has instilled a unique long-term perspective; success or failure is evaluated through long-term strategic considerations rather than short-term gains and losses. This perspective, however, should not be mistaken, as some Americans suggest, for a “marathon strategy” aimed at outlasting the United States. On the contrary, China pursues “harmony in diversity” and has consistently adhered to a foreign policy of peaceful coexistence rooted in these civilizational characteristics.

The significant contributions of Chinese civilization to the shaping of the modern world order have often been overlooked. The fact is, Chinese ideas have influenced the West across various domains. In economics, the classical Chinese text, the?“Book of Changes”, and Daoist principles of “non-action” are considered foundational to the Physiocratic school, the world’s first political economy school established in France. In Physiocracy, the concept of “non-action” is translated into “non-intervention” and “economic freedom,” which to some extent laid the cornerstone for Adam Smith’s theory of the market economy. In the realm of education, Confucianism’s concept of “education for all” served as the ideological foundation for mass education, which eventually developed in the West. Although the economic basis for mass education was industrialization, “education for all” provided its ideological cornerstone. In the societal realm, the classical Chinese idea of “Great Harmony” aligns closely with the socialist ideals that began to take shape in Europe during the early modern period. This alignment helps explain why, when socialist thought was first introduced from Europe to China, Chinese intellectuals were able to readily embrace it.

From this perspective, we can gain a deeper understanding of the global significance of Chinese modernization. By emphasizing “Chinese-ness,” China acknowledges the existence of other forms of modernization, such as “European,” “American,” and “Japanese” modernizations. This recognition underscores the diversity of modernization, illustrating that different civilizations not only have unique ways but also pursue their development through distinct approaches.

Second, emphasizing “Chinese-ness” highlights the idea that modernization can only succeed when it aligns with a country’s civilization, culture, and national conditions; a modernization drive that goes against such approach may fail eventually. Historically, modernization efforts that conform to a nation’s unique civilization, culture, and circumstances tend to be successful, while those that rigidly replicate other countries’ models often falter. The ideal scenario then, is that all nations can identify a path to modernization that suits their own civilization, culture, and national conditions.

Third, “Chinese-ness” indicates that China will not, like some Western countries, impose its own modernization model on others.

Finally, in the pursuit of modernization, China advocates for dialogue and mutual learning among civilizations to collectively advance global modernization. In the realm of diplomacy, this approach represents a unique Chinese solution - one that is deeply rooted in its civilizational tradition and embodies the principles of secularism, interdependence, openness, inclusiveness, and long-termism. These principles encompass non-hegemony, openness to the outside world, promotion of economic globalization, healthy competition, and inclusive win-win outcomes. This is an approach that aligns not only with China’s interests but also with the shared interests of the vast majority of developing countries.

(Contributed by Yongnian ZHENG, Founding Dean of School of Public Policy at CUHK-Shenzhen)