Without haste, without fear, ................

Written, in English, outside the Chinese Space Center in the Gobi Desert is the slogan, “Without haste, without fear, we conquer the world”. Simon Winchester suggested in a recent Australian News interview that the word ‘conquer’ should not be taken in its military definition but means that China intends to export its values to the world in the same manner as the Americans have so successfully exported theirs. Certainly, the inclusion of “without haste, without fear” in the quote suggests a non-violent delivery, a competition rather than a confrontation.

What are Chinese values and which are prominent? Winchester suggests three and that they are essentially Confucian in origin. They include respect for the wisdom and experience of the elderly. A cynic might note that this coincidentally reinforces the power of the gerontocracy that governs China but respect for the elderly is a traditional Chinese value, not a Communist Party one. Another traditional and Confucian value is a deep desire for social orderliness. Social stability is much valued in a country that has swung between extremes of anarchy and dictatorship, several times, in the last hundred years. Prior to the 19th century, the Chinese people had to be pushed – usually by a combination of misgovernment and natural catastrophe – to the edge of their own destruction before they rebelled and overthrew dynasties. A third value is the one of “hard work”, the basis of an orderly economy, which can be interpreted several different ways. Many in the West think of it – as least as typically exhibited by Asian workforces –as the externally disciplined labor of the Industrial Revolution and we consider ourselves well rid of its necessity. Chinese shopkeepers, who appear to live in their shops seven days a week and up to fifteen hours a day, have a different definition. The manual laborers at the “New University City” apartment buildings site, with many more protections than were available to Victorian-era workers in the West, would understand it differently again.

Are Anglo-American and Chinese values necessarily opposed? Perhaps not but it seems obvious to me that they have little in common. Western, liberal democracy has its origin in the violent competition between the English merchant classes and the landed aristocracy in the English civil wars of the 17th century. It assumed its present form in the 20th century, when the parliamentary systems of both Britain and the United States expanded to include representatives of the entire electorate. There has been no comparable development in Chinese history. A nation’s culture is a product of its history and there are thus no ‘attachment points’ in Chinese culture to which this Anglo-American concept of democracy might be grafted. It is simply an alien ideology. Though it can be intellectually dissected and perhaps even appreciated in Chinese universities, it has no root in the country’s culture.

The lack of what we know as democracy does not necessarily mean that there is no personal freedom here. In fact I think there is a great deal. Cynics again might say that it is simply the freedom to make a lot of money - provided you toe the line. But I watched an Australian Network news broadcast yesterday (9/17), in which a journalist attempted to penetrate a village in which the family of a blind, imprisoned legal activist, who is reported to have spoken out against heavy-handed implementation of the country’s “One child per family” policy, is said to be under house arrest. Her initial attempt at entry was turned away at a roadblock by non-uniformed guards but they found another road in, again by car, apparently not guarded. Once in the village, an attempt to reach the house was turned away by villagers – identified by the journalist as ‘plain clothes’ police but who might as easily have been villagers who perhaps didn’t want foreign journalists stirring up trouble for them. They were ‘hustled back into their car’ and drove away. Apart from the non-issue of the right of foreign journalists to roam at will through China there are two interesting points raised by this episode. The first is the right of people to speak against the population control (or any other government) policy in China. The second is the policy itself.

China’s legal system may not compare to our own in its devotion to individual rights of free speech and reproduction but it is the country’s legal system. It should be seen in context if any useful discussion is to ensue. And it would not be true to say that there is no free speech here although outright opposition to the government is clearly prohibited. Foreign teachers here are specifically requested not to discuss politics (or religion) with students though I have heard several students make unprompted critical remarks about local government issues. I think the truth is that individuals are free to criticize anything they wish to unless or until they seek a national or international audience for their opinions.

The circumstances of the activist’s imprisonment were not explained and, within the two minutes allocated to the story, probably could not have been. However, the same journalist had no problem finding, identifying and interviewing for the same story the brother and mother-in-law of the activist, both of whom condemned his imprisonment and the treatment of his family. They were identified by name, on camera, and apparently did not fear or did not anticipate adverse consequences.

The policy itself is one that horrifies some members of societies with no experience of large-scale famine. In the West, we have experienced only man-made famines since the 19th century and we have access to plenty of food. But with four times the population of the United States, China has only one-eighth the arable land per capita, according to the World Watch Institute. Unless more arable land can be created, population clearly has to be kept in some sort of balance. The alternative to not doing so is within living memory. One of my students told me a story she heard from her grandparent about the last great famine in China. People boiled tree bark for food before starving to death.

A recent Pew Global Attitudes poll found that 86% of the population approves of the direction of their government but I see no evidence of large-scale brainwashing going on. I do see some very positive, intellectually curious students at the two universities where I teach. They are quite capable of making the same connection between population control and the prevention of famine that their government has made and evidently support the policy.