Beijing lives and breathes politics

Spent Sunday arvo at the “Western Returned Scholars Association“.  WRSA is a government-affiliated organisation consisting of over 40,000 Chinese scholars and researchers who have studied abroad.

WRSA is housed in a lovely courtyard just footsteps away from Tiananmen Square.  You can’t help but feel that you’re right in the middle of the power game.

Beautiful garden next door to WRSA. Blackberry photo, hence poor quality.

Went with the Wife and Corean Audit to listen to a talk from Dr Yuyan Zhang, a Professor and Director of the Institute of Economics and Politics Studies from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.   CASS is China’s premier think-tank, so it’s one of the best places to find out what ideas are being debated in Zhongnanhai.

Dr Zhang spoke about China’s future growth and place in the world.  It was a very strategic talk, with some interesting and at times, controversial theories.  While much of what he said was not really new to me, quite a bit would be a little shocking to a Western ear.  It was a very confident view of China, which focussed on themes revolving around the “World vs China”.  It was certainly for a Chinese audience.

Note that there are many differing views in China and also within CASS.  Policy is keenly debated in China and especially in Beijing, where internationally-aware taxi drivers would give most politicians a run for their money (a taxi driver I chatted to yesterday knew the minutiae of the UK election). Like everywhere else in the world, policy is a constant battle between liberals and hard-liners.

Some highlights (the talk was in Chinese, so this is my translation.  Apologies for any dodgy translation errors):

- China’s economy currently contributes around 7% of global GDP.  This is roughly equivalent to what China contributed in 1900. Indicative of China’s long-term view of the world, Dr Zhang also mentioned that Western economists estimate China’s GDP in 1600 was around 40% of global GDP.  I’ve seen numbers anywhere from 25-40% from other sources.  In any case the key message is that China’s current rise is nothing new nor unusual, and the more nationalistic message is that China has historically been the strongest economy in the world.

- He made jokes how after hosting a successful Olympics, many Westerners were stunned, but still maintained China was a developing country.  He ridiculed this view.  This is important as in international negotiations, China maintains that it is still a “developing country”.  Obviously it’s a negotiation tactic, but the fact that Dr Zhang was willing to joke about this shows the confidence he has in China’s development.

- He was very sceptical about climate change on both a scientific and political front.  He wasn’t convinced in the science, but most importantly, on the political front, he saw the whole climate change debate as a way for the West to restrict China’s rise, while at the same time stunting China’s development through foisting on additional responsibilities. He also said that German policymakers had told him they were pushing climate change really hard, not because they believe in the science, but because they want to crimp Russia’s ability to dictate energy politics in Europe, as Russia supplies a lot of gas to Euroland.  Whether his story about the Germans is true or not, it shows the high level of scepticism over climate change and the West’s intentions.  On the flip side, while his scepticism is worrying for the success of international climate change negotiations, China is investing a lot in renewable energy, because the government realises that the current coal-fired growth model is unsustainable.

- On oil, he said that the US would like a relatively stable oil price.  If it’s too high, it will mean Iran and Russia will get up to mischief because their budgets become flush with oil revenues.  If it’s too low, it’ll benefit countries like China, who are quite dependent on oil for development.  Hence, from the US’ perspective, this is not ideal either.  I’ve also heard this view from energy strategists previously.

- Continuing his “World vs China” view, he argued that the current global structures and institutions are all structured to restrict China’s rise.  Typically, the rest of the world was largely treated as an entire entity, with little differentiation made.

- He floated a theory that I’ve never heard before about America’s invasion of Iraq: that it wasn’t about securing oil, but about securing water resources.  He said that Iraq has good water resources.  He also argued that from a strategic point of view, Iraq is the first domino for the US to achieve its goal of democratising the Middle East.

- He really stressed water and talked about China’s problems with scarce, polluted water resources.  He foresaw the potential for future conflict with India given the role the Himalayas play in water security.

- Emphasised the need for China to be successful at projecting its own soft power.  He said that China needed to become adept at “smart power” and that it’s no good having a lot of “hard power”, if you don’t have any soft power.

- China will need tonnes of resources to continue its development and will continue to pursue them.

- He argued that the next decade is extremely important for China.  He thinks that if China is able to maintain its current economic growth, by 2020 China will have “climbed the mountain” and will have attained a very strong position in geo-politics.

All in all, it was a fascinating talk.  It was a relatively hawkish view, but as I wrote above, there are many differing views within CASS.  It’s likely however, that the view of the West restricting China’s rise is shared not only within CASS, but amongst the wider Chinese populace.

Dr Zhang. The banner translates to "China's renaissance and future in the world" (Blackberry photo quality)

Finally, a quick note on the Raffles Hotel.  We had free vouchers for afternoon tea and conveniently, it was only 5 mins away from the talk.  Was a really great snack, particularly the scones and sandwiches.  They also give you a glass of champagne.  The decore of the room was in typical Raffles style and very colonial.  I felt like I was in a hill station and should have been wearing a safari suit – “Jolly good show old chap and all of that”.  I don’t know how much it normally costs, but I’d say it would be a little steep.  Was very nice, but I don’t think I’d go back if I had to pay (because it would be expensive).

Raffles Hotel afternoon tea - Jolly good show old chap!