Not a clash of civilizations
This letter is in response to Joseph Tse-hei Lee’s (李榭熙) editorial (“Hong Kong in clash of civilizations,” Dec. 8, page 6). I disagree with the title, and from there that Lee states that the protests in Hong Kong have “become part of the potentially larger clash of civilizations between liberalism and authoritarianism, and between popular demand for openness and autocratic obsession with control.” This is an unwise and mistaken choice of words.
Samuel Huntington’s now-infamous “Clash of Civilizations” thesis stated that conflict in the future would no longer be based on political systems and inclinations, but on clashes between cultures and “civilizations” in the world, including Latin American, Buddhist, Chinese, Hindu, Japanese, African, Orthodox (Russia and satellite states), Muslim and Western.
Huntington’s theory has suffered much since its publication, and many have pointed out its inherent bigotry and bias, and also that what will really happen in the future is a given “Dialogue Among Civilizations.” In a word, all civilizations are in fact comprised of many different peoples in communicative relationships — and often citizens from a supposedly different civilization have somehow transferred their identity into a new civilization. Identity and culture are much more malleable and diverse than this, and these facets are also responsive to political contexts and to some extent manipulation. In a word, our world is not subject to the cultural determinism that Huntington posits. It has also been pointed out that conflict has historically been and continues to be more common within the borders of given civilizations than it has been across and between states of different civilizations. In all of these respects Huntington’s claim that identity and culture are immutable and determined has come under fire. The Nation said that Huntington’s thesis was downright ignorant, and that “labels like ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ serve only to confuse us about a disorderly reality.”
In terms of Lee’s argument, that anyone can claim that what is happening in Hong Kong is civilizational is also ignorant. After all, Hong Kongers and the Chinese emerge from the same civilization (Sinic, as Huntington puts it, and many would roughly agree). Thus, there is no clash between peoples here in the true sense. In a word, it is a political clash, a clash between governmental/administrative systems and beliefs. Exactly as Lee puts it, the battle is between socialist dictatorship and liberal democracy — and these are categorically not civilizations!
This important categorization vis a vis politics, civility, peoples and to some extent nation-states, must be clearly understood and expressed.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his