Martin Jacques: My argument essentially is that every country is different; it’s therefore simply not true to say that every country is going to have Western style modernity. And the reason is absolutely simple: modernity is not only shaped by markets and competition and technology, but also by history and culture. This is very obvious. But we’re living in a very peculiar period, in some ways ideologically neoliberal, and where certain interpretations of the economy have become centralized and verified as dominant over all others. The result is that history and culture have been downgraded in terms of their importance.
Japan is also different. Anyone who knows anything about Japan knows it’s not the West. Now, how would China be different? Well, my argument is that China would be different in numerous ways, but there are four things in particular I’m going to focus on.
First China isn’t a nation-state but a civilization- state. It’s constructed in a very different way from any Western nation. And this has all sorts of profound consequences to the way in which China relates to other countries. Secondly, the historical traditions of the Chinese when it comes to relations with others, particularly those in close proximity, was the tributary system, whereas the European tradition is centered on the colonial tradition. Although colonialism has more or less disappeared, such ideas live on.
Thirdly, the State in China has a very different relationship with the populace than in the West. The State is seen by the Chinese as part of the family. The State is seen as a kind of quintessence, the embodiment of civilization. So in China, the legitimacy of the State is unquestionable, despite the fact that the Chinese don’t have universal suffrage.
The fourth example is ethnicity, and racial belonging. Over 90 percent of Chinese people think of themselves as one race. Yet most other countries think of themselves as multiethnic. How come China is so different? Again I think you have to look back at history, and the nature of Chinese civilization: conquest, occupation, assimilation and so on.
The way in which modernity was introduced into China is obviously very different from the Western tradition. Modernit y wa s introduced by the Communist Party. Yet this is very different from the Soviet tradition as well, because the Soviet Communist Party has now disappeared.
NewsChina: There have been many books published in recent years talking about and advocating the rise of China. What’s your comment on that?
Martin Jacques: China’s economy has been growing rapidly for a long time, and its only natural that people should start raising their sights to look to where it’s going. There are lots and lots of people discussing this issue now, because we need to try to understand it. And I think one of the many difficulties inside China is that the Chinese themselves haven’t discussed this question in depth. And I think there are two very good reasons why they haven’t. First of all, when you are in a period of transformation, such as the one China is in, you prioritize economic development. You don’t talk, you just get on with it.
The second reason is linked to the first, but it’s different. Deng Xiaoping’s philosophy was to concentrate on economic development and not antagonize other countries, especially the United States. Therefore, discussing the rise of China in broader terms was in a sense discouraged, as it might create problems. But you eventually get to a point where you can’t postpone it.
NewsChina: There are still many conflicts within China itself. Do you think these conflicts will hinder China’s rise?
Martin Jacques: I think one has to anticipate lots of problems. The rise of China occurred over a 30 year period. Having big problems isn’t new. It’s just a process of change over time. And the government has been rather smart about this process. There has been an extremely effective brand of management.
The question I think you are asking me is a bigger one. What could derail China’s rise? What could seriously change this picture?
NewsChina: Yes, like the possible burst of the economic bubble. Many people are comparing China to Japan in 1990s.
Martin Jacques: I think this is a mistake, because Japan in the 1980s was already a very advanced country. China is still in its economic take-off. By this I mean the basic engine of growth in China has been the shift in the population from rural to urban, and the supply of cheap labor enabling China to develop a very basic manufacturing industry. That is what has driven Chinese growth, and it still drives Chinese growth, and it will continue to drive Chinese growth for some time to come. People can say that Guangdong has more expensive labor now. Yes, but that’s not true in interior provinces. It means Guangdong is now priced out of doing that kind of production. And Shanghai is priced out. Beijing is priced out. But there are lots parts of China that aren’t. So that basic source of growth is still there. It wasn’t there in Japan. By the 1980s, Japan was overwhelmingly industrialized. If you ask me further down the road, is the Japanese experience at some point relevant? Then I’d answer yes. But it’s not relevant now.
NewsChina: How do you hope to influence Chinese readers?
Martin Jacques: I would hope that Chinese readers find my book interesting, stimulating, or are prompted to think about the questions the book raises. Sometimes Chinese people ask me, “How well do you know China?” And I say, “Well, I’m not Chinese, so you know China much better than I do. But the reason my book might interest you is because I’m not Chinese, because sometimes, the only way to take a different view of your country, is to see it through the eyes of someone from the outside.” I saw my country differently because Hari my wife saw it differently. I suddenly realized that her view of my country was equally as valid as my view.
July 2010
