Yan Xuetong, "How to Prevent Ideological Disputes"

Yan Xuetong, “Why and How to Prevent the Intensification of Ideological Disputes between China and the US”[1]

Introduction and Translation by David Ownby

Introduction

Yan Xuetong (b. 1952) is Distinguished Professor and Dean of the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University in Beijing.  He is extremely influential as an academic and as a public intellectual, with frequent publications in both Chinese and English, including multiple op-eds in the New York Times (he did his Ph.D. at Berkeley and has been Visiting Professor at a number of universities in the United States and Europe).    As is the case with many liberals, he is bullish about China but less enthusiastic about the Communist Party.  This stance is aptly summed up in Pär Nyrén’s 2019 review of Yan’s book, Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers:

“Despite his reputation as a hardliner, being an alumnus of the research arm of China’s Ministry of State Security, and having served as an adviser for the state-run television channel CCTV, Yan Xuetong is not an apologist for the political system of the People’s Republic. While Yan has portrayed his new book in Chinese media outlets as an overview of what China’s leaders have done right, in Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers he issues a fundamental critique of the Communist Party’s governance. According to Yan, ‘humane authority requires consistency between a leading state’s domestic ideology and the political values it pursues abroad. Unfortunately, the present Chinese government is conflicted in this regard.’ Later in the book he goes on to claim that China lacks an ideology ‘shared by both the government and the governed at home,’ which currently prevents China from setting the norms of international governance. Put differently, Yan Xuetong, one of the most forceful proponents of increased Chinese influence internationally, who believes that perceived legitimacy is the key to international power, contends that the Chinese people do not share the values of the Chinese government and that foreigners are put off by its domestic rule.”

The text translated here is not critical in this sense, and in fact is more important for its authorship and its timing (it was published on October 7, 2020) than for its content.  In a nutshell, Yan says that China has a forty year history of pragmatism in international diplomacy which has served its interests extremely well.  In other words, China has practiced a philosophy of “live and let live,” neither over-selling its ideology to others, nor getting bent out of shape when other countries criticize China in ideological terms.  In the current climate of tension between China and the United States, China should resist the American provocation and remain true to its principles.  A new cold war will not serve China’s interests.

Those who follow Chinese foreign policy more closely than I do might well dispute Yan’s depiction of Chinese “pragmatism,” and he of course says nothing about China’s “United Front” policies and other measures that attempt to spread China’s influence abroad in more subtle ways, but in the current context, what is important is that Yan is pushing back against China’s “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy, a trend that has been clear since the summer.

Favorite quotes

“The cold war was not 'neither war nor peace,' but a specific form of warfare, namely, proxy war. If a new cold war is to be fought, a large number of proxy wars will have to be fought, which will not only bring great difficulties to China's national rejuvenation, but will even risk its premature death.”

“We will not engage in ideological disputes with any country. At present, there are more than 200 political regimes in the world, but very few of them share our ideology and political system. Under such circumstances, avoiding ideological disputes with all countries will do more good than harm to our country.”

“Given that our country's economic recovery and pandemic prevention are in better shape than those of other countries, not comparing the effects of different political systems horizontally is all the more important.  Such a posture not only reflects China’s respect for the autonomy of the people of other countries to choose their own political systems, but also avoids arousing the antipathy of the people whose country is the object of the comparison.  In order to strengthen friendly relations between China and other countries, it is necessary for the relevant departments to be aware of the importance of respecting the different political systems of other countries and to contain the arrogance that might belittle those political systems.”

Translation

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a speech on July 23, 2020, declaring the Trump administration's policy of forming an ideologically based anti-China coalition. The following day, the Chinese government expressed its position of not engaging in ideological disputes with the United States: "Recently, some anti-Chinese forces on the US side have gone so far as to deliberately create ideological confrontation…China still hopes to achieve a relationship of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation with the United States…China will not dance to the American tune, nor will allow the US side to cause mischief." Here, it is worth discussing the strategic importance of preventing the intensification of the Sino-American ideological disputes, as well as specific measures of prevention.

The Strategic Importance of Preventing the Intensification of Ideological Disputes

The rise of China objectively creates a structural contradiction with the strategic goal of the United States to maintain its hegemonic position, making strategic competition between China and the United States inevitable. However, the question of where to compete and where not to compete has become one of strategic choice. Competition in the fields of science and technology, economy, military, diplomacy, education, etc. is crucial to the success or failure of national rejuvenation, so competition in these fields is necessary. In contrast, ideological competition is not beneficial to national rejuvenation, and thus since China's reform and opening in the 1980s, not engaging in ideological competition has become a major strategic principle of our government. Its strategic significance is multiple.

First, we should maintain an international environment that is beneficial to national rejuvenation in the long term. In 1981, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the “Resolution on Certain Historical Issues of the Party since the Founding of the People's Republic of China,” which summarized the historical lessons learned since the founding of the new China, of which the most important diplomatic lesson is the importance of not engaging in ideological disputes with other countries. The resolution states: "The path of revolution and the path of development suitable to the characteristics of a country can only be found, created, and decided by its own people, and no one has the right to impose his own views on others. Only in this way can we have true internationalism, otherwise there will only be hegemonism. In our future international dealings, we will always adhere to such a principled position."

Following the principle of not engaging in disputes over the proper path to take has bought our country more than 30 years of strategic opportunity for peaceful construction. This principle was concretized in 2017: "We will not 'import' foreign models or 'export' the Chinese model, and we will not ask other countries to 'copy' 'The Chinese Way'.” 

Second, political obstacles to international cooperation should be reduced. The rationale behind the principle of not engaging in ideological disputes is to avoid political obstacles to international cooperation caused by ideological disputes, which can in turn provide a long-term strategic opportunity for China’s rise. For example, in 1989, Western countries, led by the United States, imposed collective sanctions on China for ideological reasons. In response, Comrade Deng Xiaoping met with former US President Richard Nixon and told him, "Relations between countries should be considered mainly in the light of a particular country's own strategic interests. The focus should be on its own long-term strategic interests, while also respecting the interests of other countries, without haggling over historical grudges, or differences in social systems and ideologies." Our country's adherence to the stance of not engaging in ideological disputes led to the restoration of relations with the West in 1993.

Third, we should enhance international strategic credibility and maintain the stability of strategic relations. Not engaging in ideological disputes also means that our basic position on cooperation with any country will not change as a result of changes in the other country's political system or ideology. Maintaining policy continuity can enhance our international strategic credibility and thus keep cooperation moving forward.

For example, in the late 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, introduced "new liberal thinking" and submitted the economy to shock therapy-style reforms. This was different from the direction of China's socialist reform. In this regard, Comrade Deng Xiaoping said, "No matter how the Soviet Union changes, we should develop relations with it calmly, on the basis of the five principles of peaceful coexistence, including political relations, without engaging in ideological disputes."

In 1991, Russia took the place of the a dissolved Soviet Union, and the first Russian president, Boris Yeltsin, changed the Soviet political system. In response, China continued to adhere to the principle of no ideological disputes, facilitating Yeltsin’s four visits to China during his term in office. This not only preserved the strategic cooperation between the two countries, but also led to the joint formation in 1996 of the "Shanghai Five" meeting mechanism, which evolved into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2001.

Fourth, we must guard against a new cold war and proxy wars. The cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union was mainly characterized by proxy wars between the two sides to promote regimes in third countries that shared their ideologies. The Chinese government is well aware of the danger of ideological rivalry leading to a new cold war, stating: "A few days ago, United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made a speech in an attempt to rekindle ideological confrontation and lead the world into a new cold war."

The cold war was not "neither war nor peace," but a specific form of warfare, namely, proxy war. If a new cold war is to be fought, a large number of proxy wars will have to be fought, which will not only bring great difficulties to China's national rejuvenation, but will even risk its premature death. Keeping China-United States strategic competition outside the ideological realm will help prevent proxy wars between China and the United States triggered by ideological disputes.

Strategies to Prevent the Intensification of Ideological Disputes

The Chinese government has made clear to the international community its position that the United States is "deliberately stirring up ideological confrontation…and China’s actions will not be determined by a small number of anti-China forces in the United States." When we translate this position into concrete policies and actions, we will be able to reduce the effectiveness of the US strategy of provoking ideological confrontation by at least half. Since the United States is deliberately stirring up ideological disputes, we can only rely on our own unilateral action to guard against the danger of ideological disputes leading to a new cold war.

First, we will not engage in ideological disputes with any country. At present, there are more than 200 political regimes in the world, but very few of them share our ideology and political system. Under such circumstances, avoiding ideological disputes with all countries will do more good than harm to our country. Since the United States is deliberately stirring up ideological disputes, it is bound to make any number of criticisms of our country's internal affairs. Given the large number of countries in the world whose ideologies and political systems are similar to those of the US, China should continue its current practice of not taking the bait and not playing along, so as to avoid giving the US an excuse to form an anti-China alliance under the pretext of ideology. In the event of ideological conflicts with other countries, China should adopt an accommodating strategy and take the initiative to play down differences and conflicts.

Second, do not criticize the ideologies and political systems of other countries. In response to the ideological differences between China and the Soviet Union, Comrade Deng Xiaoping’s instructions were: "Don't engage in frivolous criticism or accusations, and don't go too far in speech or action." This experience applies equally to all countries engaged in ideological disputes with China. In response to the US's ideological provocations, our government responded: "It is not necessary or possible for one party to change the other, but both should respect the autonomous choices made by the people of the other country." Since the US cannot change China, we need not fear ideological attacks from the US; since we have no intention of changing the US, we need not criticize its human rights situation or domestic policies. The same approach can be taken with other countries with which our country has ideological differences. When one party does not engage in the dispute, it achieves the result that the other party fails to achieve by fighting. 

Third, propaganda work directed at the outside world does not compare the merits of our political system with those of other countries. We have always maintained that "all countries and peoples should enjoy common dignity. We should insist on the equality of all countries, regardless of their size, strength or weakness, wealth or poverty, respect the right of peoples to choose their own path of development, oppose interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and uphold international fairness and justice. ‘You don't know whether a shoe fits or not until you wear it yourself.’ As for the suitability of a developmental path for a particular country, the people of that country are the best positioned to decide." Given that our country's economic recovery and pandemic prevention are in better shape than those of other countries, not comparing the effects of different political systems horizontally is all the more important. 

Such a posture not only reflects China’s respect for the autonomy of the people of other countries to choose their own political systems, but also avoids arousing the antipathy of the people whose country is the object of the comparison.  In order to strengthen friendly relations between China and other countries, it is necessary for the relevant departments to be aware of the importance of respecting the different political systems of other countries and containing the arrogance that might belittle those political systems.

Fourth, we should advocate the peaceful coexistence of different political systems and refrain from engaging in ideological disputes in the realm of public opinion. China's White Paper on “China's Peaceful Development,” published in 2011, states that China will "vigorously promote dialogue and exchange among civilizations and eliminate ideological prejudices and barriers, so as to make human society more harmonious and peaceful and the world more diverse.” Human beings entertain a wide variety of ideas, and it is impossible to eliminate ideological differences between countries. Therefore, in order to avoid ideological differences affecting our foreign relations, the relevant departments should strictly implement the principle of not engaging in ideological disputes, and build institutional self-confidence on the principle that our system is best suited to our country. 

​In 2011, Hu Jintao, then General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee, pointed out that "the socialist system with Chinese characteristics is the fundamental institutional guarantee for the development and progress of contemporary China. It embodies the characteristics and advantages of socialism with Chinese characteristics in a concentrated fashion." In other words, we firmly believe that China's system can bring progress to China, but we do not assume that all foreign systems are inferior to China's. In order to enhance our friendly relations with other countries, we need to take care to respect the different political systems of other countries and restrain the arrogance that might belittle them. Our tradition of cultural self-confidence teaches us "not to reject those who come from outside, nor to attempt to teach him our ways,” which means that we do not take the initiative to export our ideology or political system, but neither do we hide it from those who wish to emulate it.

By resolutely implementing the Central Government's policy of not engaging in ideological battles and not exporting political systems, the government will be able to demonstrate that our country's position on ideological disputes differs from the hegemony of the United States, while at the same time effectively avoiding a new cold war.

Note

 [1] 阎学通, “为何及如何防范中美意识形态之争加剧,” published online on October 7, 2020 and available at http://m.aisixiang.com/data/123110.html .